Small correction: At 17:49 I say that Rangers get 3rd level spells at level 5, I meant 2nd level spells. Wouldn't that be great if they got 3rd level spells?
I think you overvalue half-casters. People don't simply forget spells are part of the class - they want to play a Drizzt say, and not somebody casting spells long after the main caster gets them. Saying someone undervalues spellcasting (and therefore the class isn't that weak) effectly means telling them they shouldn't try to make the Ranger work as a martial class; they should be satisfied by patching up their martial shortcomings by casting mediocre spells the party caster could cast much better. What would be great is if we ever got option class features to convert spell slots into stuff actually useful to the bowman or two-weapon fighter or beastmaster. You know, like how the 2014 Paladin was a success simply because the design allowed players to forget about the half caster spell list and just view slots as something useful for the martial build that many players want paladins/rangers to be.
@@user-wm3hu7lo1g or you could just play a fighter/rogue. Given how powerful spells are, even lower levels ones, and better than many martial features, I think you are going to find yourself in the vast minority, and its a bit late to complain about rangers having spells as that's been established for decades now. And the smite every turn 2014 Paladin was a poorly played paladin. You want to play a full martial--play a full martial.
A really easy analogy for what they could have done with Hunters Mark is the update to Wild Shape with the Druid. It’s called Hunter’s Mark, not Ranger’s Mark. Make the Hunter class get a bunch of fun stuff to do with HM. Give HM availability to the other subclasses but give them other fun things to do with the expended charges, like they did with Druid.
Exactly. Or, they get a Mark feature in level 1. And then it changes to Hunter's- , Stalker's , Warden's , and Beast's Mark at level 3. And for god's sake, don't make this a spell. This should be the core feature of the class and scale with ranger levels.
One thing you seem to have missed: It appears that Immunities is now a blanket term that covers both damage types and conditions. This makes the Hunter subclass' ability particularly useful. Knowing which creatures have immunity to the charmed, prone, frightened and paralysed conditions can make a huge difference to the tactics a party employs.
Your question in the beginning sort of depends on how you define "worst class". It's not the weakest class in the game. You get Extra Attack, a Fighting Style, Weapon Mastery and Half-Casting and those features alone are enough to make a decent character, but I think it's the worst designed class, because you don't get a lot beyond that. The only other features I actually like are expertise and the climb/swim-speed at level 6, since the feel very on brand. However many of the problems the Tasha's version had, still persist. You still get very little past level 5 or 6. You still don't have any features that make the Ranger feel unique (Things like, Rage, Sneak Attack, Actions Surge, Smite, Flurry of Blows). Even Hunter's Mark isn't exclusive to the ranger and it still has most of the issues as the 2014 version and upgrades only start coming at level 13 and most of them seem to weak. I could go on, but I don't want this to turn into a long wall of text, but the TL DR version is: I think Ranger only got gimmicks instead of actual changes, despite needing them and it's now the class I'm the least exited to play. It's one of the few things I'm actually negative about with the new edition and I'm a bit disappointed thb, so I apologize for the rant. Thank you for your coverage of the new PHB, Chris.
absolutely agree , hunters mark is a terrible crutch and they shoulda incentivsed players to use other spells that are much better options for their concentration
Boring, repetitive AND weak. It got improved, yes, but is no near at all compared to all the other classes, even the rogue (despite having its dpr a little nerfed) got some cool extra tools.
@ShadowGeek12 they did incentivize that, by giving us all those free uses. Dropping HM to concentrate on something else for a while e.g. PWT or Enhance Ability while exploring are therefore a lot less painful
@@PsyrenXY great, 5 free uses for the classes core mechanic. What happens when you're out of all your hunter's mark uses (spell slots included)? Half your class features no longer function, including your capstones. That's really bad character design. Even full spellcasters have contingencies when out of slots.
I have a tinfoil hat theory that the reason the Hunter's level 11 feature is so bad is because it was designed with the version of Hunter's Mark that was present in the playtest, the one that only worked once per turn but scaled on number of d6s, and they forgot to change it when they rolled back the changes to Hunter's Mark. Overall the class does fine in terms of power, but it feels super bad when selecting your spells, as close to half of the spells in the Ranger's list need concentration, and its not very intuitive to have to give up multiple class features in order to use them. Its not weak by any means, its just a feels bad class.
I think that the capstone has the same problem, if you could upcast to 5d10 rather than 5d6 once per turn (at 5th level spell slot) it would feel much stronger, but it sucks as it is.
I've been saying all along that the 13th level feature should just buff all Ranger Concentration spells. not just HM. I like a Reliable Concentration version where the check cannot be lower than Wisdom Score, but even advantage would be fine. I do think if they are going to just buff HM, allowing it to be cast by replacing an attack would be good. Maybe stacking with Reliable Concentration.
What I've done was making Rangers be able to concentrate on two spells having disadvantage on concentration saves when doing so. My players have been enjoying it A LOT, and it feels like a simple "fix" to that boring gameplay loop around Hunter's Mark
me personally, i dont like how so many of the class and subclass features are tied to hm. especially when a) its a spell that mimics abilities that shouldve been core to ranger itself b) those features again feel like something the ranger themselves should just be able to do and c) it kinda punishes you for not using it. if instead hunters mark was a class ability that i got to use similar to like the channel divinity of a paladin, i think i wouldve been much happier with the end result. that being said, ive heard you and i now see potential in this new ranger. still not were i wouldve liked it to end up but im not as angry with it as i was before watching this. appreciate you making these videos!
That's where I'm coming from as well. I don't much care about the optimization of the class, but I feel like flavor failed a bit. Hunter's Mark imo should just be something that they can do without using a spell, similar to 4e's quarry and Pathfinder 2e's Hunt Prey; and that requiring concentration is just bad (if I ever GM for a Ranger I'm removing concentration on it and we can figure out a new level 13 ability). I feel like Ranger is losing its flavor of nature survivalist who's more than adept as a warrior in their own right (ala Aragon) and that they're just doubing down more and more on the warrior aspect without knowing how to do that to make them unique.
Yeah it's really strange they chose to rely on the spell rather than just bake it in as a class feature. They did it in prior editions and even had it that way in Tasha's. Is there some overarching design reason it just HAD to be a spell?
New ranger is just not good with Hunter's Mark as it is. Three of the base class features are tied to having HM active, as are one of Beast Master, and two of Hunter. I've heard on this channel probably hundreds of times that good features shouldn't be tied to others since that's overly restrictive and I heartily agree. Now some subclasses are inextricably tied to HM while others are not. This is bad design. Chris, I wish you hadn't held back in your critique of HM. Sure, there are 4 Ranger spells that used to require concentration that now do not, and some of them work with HM, but that's not nearly enough to avoid talking deeply about the elephant in the room. Maybe another video topic. ;)
House Rule people should consider, treat hunters mark like divine favor. The buff stays on the ranger, no concentration and when they hit a target the target gets 'marked'. If you are really worried about it being too powerful lower the damage to a 1d4 and lower the duration to 1 min at low level, 1 hour at higher level spells.
I have... Issues with the new Ranger and most of them can be boiled down to 'why is Hunter's Mark a spell? And why are ao many feature slots dedicated solely to making it better?' both of which could probably be alleviated by making HM an ability instead. I don't even really mind it being concentration that much. Except that so many other fun flavorful thematic spells of the ranger are also concentration. If there were more features in those slots, I'd probably have less of an issue with it. Otherwise its 'why would i concentrate on these other apells when the class has so much investment in this one?' I personally believe that spells that are exclusive and thematic to just a halfcaster class should be better in some way than the more 'generic' spells due to how long it takes for them to be online. 12:40 so, why not just remove the concentration tag from it at this level? 13:29 okay, this might be kind of better considering it doesn't list that it goes away from attacking here. 14:22 Neat, Tasha Rogues can do that at level 5? Without a spell slot and it only costs them movement 15:41 ...you know, if the rest of the party could benefit from HM, this wouldn't be terrible. 17:34 respectfully disagree. 18:02 not a high bar to clear since half casters tend to feel less great than either half.
14:22 Rogues get steady aim at 3rd level. It does take a BA on top of all your movement and only gives adv to the next atk made before the end of their next turn, not to every single atk.
@@mappybc6097 fair enough. Point still stands though. You're tapping into the energy that encapsulates the Omniverse to do something a "street urchin" can do with a bit of patience. Granted that comparison holds less water with Rangers with the hole don't need a spell slots thing. Not as egregious as the 2014 monk though.
Why not remove the concentration tag at level 1 like Divine Favor? If it's because of the hour duration, there are like three class features in the 2024 PHB alone that allow people to remove concentration from a big spell by reducing the duration to 1 minute.
What I would do in my table is making hunter's mark concentration free on level 13 and make the damage 2d6 on level 20. It's not OP, doesn't change much in description terms, but opens the concentration option to other spells and eventually doubles the hunter's mark damage.
Already had this discussion with my table. Except level 6 con free. Paladin gets con free divine favor. vengeance paladin gets free advantage with no action economy. I feel like this benefit could go either way, make hunter's mark con free. or leave it the way it is and hunter's mark either: 1.) does more damage or 2.) gets the advantage always on feature that is its capstone - that feature is crap for a capstone and it would actually make hunter's mark more worth while at lower levels/throughout its career.
I had the same thoughts. I think that would make this ranger nicer to play. That being said, I think a total overhaul of the Ranger to make stuff like favored foe and favored terrain more of a focus (and work in more situations) would make the Ranger feel more unique and not like someone threw Fighter, Rogue, and Druid in a blender.
@@stevenmathews9355 that’s exactly how the Ranger feels unfortunately. And to a certain degree that’s true, Paladin feels like Fighter and cleric put together so I feel that there’s a case there (look at me Defending ranger lol). I do believe though that paladins have purpose (their oath) and every other class Does too. I think a Ranger or what defines a Ranger needs to change so they can more effectively build subclasses around it. So here’s my effort to give a Ranger a new definition. Ranger - A wise explorer that believes in protecting a particular area, people or place. This would make sense, horizon walker (protects gateways between realms) gloomstalker (protects maybe a darker place such as a mountain cave or in the underdark, or Maybe even urban areas) Fey Wanderer (protects the fey wild) Beast Master (protects the animals in a particular place and one fights alongside them). Drakewarden (the same or similar to beast master). Maybe that’s all a bad idea but my point Is giving Ranger a purpose, it’s the one Class that has much less purpose (especially compared to paladins, clerics, Druids, and warlocks and even artificers).
The problem with the 2024 Ranger is it is too focused on Hunter's Mark. There are 40 Ranger concentration spells and most of them are better than Hunter's Mark, yet 4 class features are useless unless you are using Hunter's Mark.
The thing most people just can't comprehend is that bad class features do not make a class worse, they just don't make it better. And even if you never use hunter's mark, ranger is still solid class.
@@Klaital1 While I understand the focus of that argument, it rings hollow, because bad class features replace features that SHOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD. And bad class features that are trap selections is just bad design.
@@Klaital1 Not a great argument. Those bad class features take up the space of features that could have been better. Not to mention this is a team game. If other classes have much better features in comparison, the ranger is suffering because they aren't keeping up and performing as well as their party members.
Exactly this. The 2024 Ranger class design gets a failing grade. Sure it's great the overall class doesn't suck because the class remains so wonky, but that does not excuse the anemic class features.
My problem with the Ranger is that it lacks features. I could multiclass a Fighter and Druid taking the Fey Touched Feat, and basically make a Ranger with 1 less free cast of Hunter's Mark, and maybe losing out on the Climbing/Swimming speed at the lower tiers. I lose out on nothing else, and gain Wild Shape, Wild Companion, Second Wind, Primal Order, and proficiency in CON saving throws to help maintain concentration. With the Paladin, the other half-caster, and therefore comparable, I cannot do this with a Cleric/Fighter multiclass. I could get some features but I lose out on Smites, Lay on Hands and Find Steed in the lower tiers. The Ranger will play fine in combat and in game, but it is just something that was so unliked WotC changed it almost completely to make it playable in Tasha's, then gave it basically the same amount of "candy" they gave the Wizard, but it really feels like it got less. Ranger doesn't have to be the best class and I don't even think "fixes" require bumps in power, just bumps in uniqueness, flavor, and most of all fun.
Find steed and smites are spells so you have to also add in the unique ranger spells that druids don't have, *which are good enough that the bard fans are pissed off about losing access to them*. And lay on hands isn't better than the extra healing you get from being a cleric multiclass with the new updated healing spells, especially if you pick life cleric. And even if find steed wasn't a spell, it's still functionally in the same tier as having a swimming/climbing speed. It increases your movement speed when you're not inside or underground Multiclassing is overpowered, everybody knows this. You're nearly always better off multiclassing than straight classing. Paladins and full casters are the only exceptions to this rule, and for paladins it's only because of auras. Idk I just have a problem with people saying the class isn't fun before anyone has played it. That's a very bold prediction, especially given how much flavor and uniqueness all the subclasses get
@@Tausami from what I know most Bard fans are salty they can't get Swift Quiver which was a niche Bard Archer build that didn't even come on until level 10 and was not really that good. Swift Quiver and some of the exclusive spells do indeed make the Ranger "better" but not enough to negate the claim that a Druid/Fighter does enough of the same things to make it "feel bad" to play. Multiclassing's power level is less the issue and more the fact that even if it was weaker than a straight class, Ranger doesn't get enough uniqueness. Lay on Hands as good or bad as it is is something only the Paladin gets, Divine Smite is a spell now, but it isn't one available though a feat or in a subclass. In fact, even the upgraded Searing Smite is now missing from the Ranger spell list, but Hunter's Mark remains on Vengeance Pally's spell list. Paladin's matter here because Ranger is the other half-caster. So it should have a feature as crucial and good as Aura of Protection. This could have been in making Land's Stride an Aura like effect or even in the cool feature Ranger does get, Tireless, extending that to the party. It is a feature that helps the Ranger get back in the game, but what party do you know is going to not just turn back to rest with 2 levels of exhaustion even if they have a Ranger that is good after a couple of hours. It is mainly that lack of "Ranger's thing" that I can say the Ranger feels like it would be less fun at a table than other classes. Not unfun, but less so. If you white room every encounter and your party is all about combat, Ranger will probably eat well. But if you want to see the cool things you can do and show off why you are glad you picked Ranger over another class, I think you and the DM have to work for that, whereas every other class, even the weaker ones, won't.
@@Coxsterifyokay let's imagine playing a fighter/druid multiclass. You start off as a fighter lvl 1. Then let's go druid lvl 2 and just take a druid lvl as infrequently as necessary to keep halfcaster progression. At lvl 2 you're really pretty awkward. Druids don't get bladetrips so you have to pick between casting spells as a lvl 1 spellcaster or making weapon attacks as a lvl 1 fighter. Playing a ranger would feel better because the features you get from your two lvls would synergize better. At lvl 3 we're a druid again for the third lvl 1 spell slot. We get wild shape, which is nice and rangers never get. Doesn't feel much like being a ranger, we're starting to feel like a druid played by Colby from D4. At this lvl rangers are getting subclass features and becoming gloomstalkers or fey wanderers. Rangers get great subclasses and we're missing out on that. At lvl 4 we're fighter lvl 2. We get action surge, which is nice. Rangers just get a feat. Not a huge change either way. At lvl 5 we're druid lvl 3, so we get a druid subclass. That's awesome but it doesn't make us feel like a ranger. I'd go with land druid for the flavor, I think. Rangers get extra attack. We still only have one shitty attack. At lvl 6 we get a fighter subclass. Hell yeah. Eldritch knight would probably be the right move here. Now we finally get bladetrips and our one weapon attack is looking a bit better. Lvl 7-8 we get the druid and fighter lvl 4 feats. We're up on feats relative to the ranger. But that doesn't make us feel like a ranger. We still only have one attack per turn. Lvl 9 we are druid lvl 5 and get 3rd lvl spells. Lvl 10 we are fighter lvl 5 and FINALLY get extra attack. At this point I'd say the build starts to come online, but we're nearing the end of most campaigns. I definitely think being a ranger would feel better than this at every single level
@@Tausami if you mc that way sure but if you go Fighter 1 / Druid 1 / Fighter 6 / Druid X. You lose out on some spells at level 5 and 6 but get your second feat 1 level before Ranger and still get 3rd level spells before them and make it all the way to 7th level spells. That doesn't even account for EK. With it I would probably take 1 more fighter level to get the cantrip then attack option and set myself up to grab 2 epic boons later. But that argument is more the Multiclassing is good rather than the Ranger is disappointing
@@TausamiYour analysis is spot on here. Something that people focus on though is the numbers. If the numbers are better for attack rolls/saving throws/spell DCs/skills/etc., then wouldn’t it theoretically be superior? And if it’s a better option, shouldn’t you be doing the better option so you are more useful to your party? Because D&D is a team game, you’re not having fun if you’re not working with your team. And if you’re being subpar in your build, that sucks the fun out of the game. Then again, that’s only one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is this: you come up with an idea of what you want to play, and THEN you optimize as best as you can. You want to play straight level 20 Ranger? Okay, how can you make your numbers the best they can be? Furthermore, I think because Ranger was just not that popular, that people just don’t know how to play a Ranger character. Fighters? Wizards? Heck, even Monks? All of those are known quantities. Not Ranger. We have Drizzt Do’Urden, but that’s about it lol. 😂 So it’s really hard to grok if this is an improvement or not to the class. We’ll have to actually play it to see if it’s any good! And if people won’t play it because they’re butthort about Hunter’s Mark, then that’s a genuine shame.
I agree with everything EXCEPT saying Drizzt is a Beastmaster Ranger. Guenhwyvar is a magical panther from a Figurine of Wonderous Power and in the various books there have been others who took the onyx figurine and used Guenhwyvar, even against Drizzt, himself. I would surmise he's a Hunter ranger, through and through. "Um, actually," rant over...
@@dudubassmonster Don't forget a level or 2 of Barbarian. During the years of surviving in the Underdark on his own he was a Barb and even had a "rage" that would overtake him. Though you could make the argument that he Retrained those levels during his training with Montolio and turned them into his first Ranger levels.
@@charlesmaa3411 Honestly, after the Thousand Orcs series, I only read like one or two others. I'm definitely behind on any adventures he's had since 2015-ish.
I know that the ranger isn't bad. As you explain, the sum of all of its parts with spells and weapons is very powerful. But nothing about the class design makes me excited to play a ranger.
It's not "bad" and it feels a little bit better than 2014 overall. But... In terms of utility it's worse (after 8lv), in terms of damage it deals like 1/3 possible damage (after 9lv) and it is annoying to see HM as "class feature", that almost nobody were using it anymore.
I'm going to feel like an absolute Lore pedant and kind of a jerk for pointing this out: Drizzt's Panther isn't an animal companion, She's summoned by a Figurine of wondrous power. So Drizzt isn't a Beastmaster Ranger. In fact, he's mostly an open hand monk these days based on the fact that he just recently used the Quivering Palm to defeat a foe.
Not to mention that Monks get Scimitars on their weapons list, and 99%% of the time, Drizzt is described as swinging his scimitars a crap-load of times (Flurry of Blows). He's pretty much just a straight up Monk now.
I also hate to be a lore nerd, but in the Forgotten Realms source book, Drizzt has a stat block that was approved by Salvatore. In it, he had Ranger levels but more fighter levels. Granted, this was V 3.5, but to my knowledge, it was the last time his character sheet has been published.
The main question is: Am i excited to play this 2024 Ranger? Not really. Every other class, except for the Wizard, has some new aspect that I'm excited to try out. Ranger feels pretty much the same as Tasha's. Sure, theres some improvements. But there's nothing really NEW that gets me excited here. I was hoping for some new mechanic- like the Rogue's Cunning Strikes.
Two things: - I would not expect to WIS be similar to proficiency. Not on ranger. - ranger can hardly be treated as a caster while his concentration is locked on HM forever
@@egowWhoTookMyNick you don’t have to always use concentration on hm. It’s still just an option you can choose to ignore. No one forces you. Ranger would never compare to casters though because they’re half-casters. Spells are a supplement for them, they’re not supposed to rival casters in that regard.
Something to remember of the fey wanderer's deadly strikes is that it differs from other, "once per turn," effects. It scales with the number of targets you hit. In a context where you want to spread out your damage, it can make up for not having HM on all the targets. It also means that in those situations, you can concentrate on something else. It seems like it might combine well with cleave, since the second hit must be on a second target.
What’s really frustrating is how, after 10+ years of complaints, homebrews, Unearthed Arcana, and obvious concentration bloat and lack of identity, they still haven’t nailed the class. It’s not terrible-it’s just frustratingly lost in its own concept. There should be at least five new exclusive exploration and on-hit effect spells for the ranger. That way, we wouldn’t even need Favored Foe. And the capstone is a joke.
That's because everyone has a different idea of what a ranger is. Cope. If you want to see this in action watch Bob the World Builders video and you will see literally every D&D spinoff has different ideas of what a ranger is.
@@phillconklin382 I watched Bob's video, and literally everything he talked about was solved by Paizo for the Ranger in PF2e, but D&D UA-camrs keep refusing to acknowledge the system except to whine about things like spending 1 of your actions to draw items. Literally every single thing he mentioned is possible on a PF2e Ranger. All of it. The core rules provide an immense foundation, the Ranger's base framework is pretty minimal other than stuff you'd universally expect, and class feats build out the rest.
@@AnaseSkyrider "The board game Call of Cthulhu didn't get Yelig'nar to have a proper unique identity! This other board game called Eldritch Horror got him right! Why can't Call of Cthulhu players admit that?! They only want to complain about Eldritch Horror's game features!" - you
@@phillconklin382You nailed it! This time they actually decided that being a weapon using HUNTER (with the mark) with a few supplementary spells was at the core of the Ranger Class. I'd say it has more definition to its identity than it did before. But so many people are complaining because their definition of Ranger includes concentrating on Spike Growth, lol
Everything up to level 15 the fey wanderer (my fave class/subclass) does can be be done by pact of the blade archfey warlock at level 3 and on top of that the warlock gets full levelled spellcasting, 2 extra attacks, their spellcasting mod as their attack and damage mod, plus the million other things warlock can do (apologies for being so salty)
I never thought it was bad I just don’t like it, literally half of the ranger spells are concentration spells but if you’re not using hunters mark you’re not using half you base class features edit: my argument isn’t that hunters mark is bad or not thematic I just would’ve liked to see rangers get more magic arrow options as class feature instead of hunters mark
The community is stuck in this weird loop, where the conversation goes nowhere because they’re having 2 different conversations … **The new Rangers just not very interesting .. *You’re wrong it’s DPR is solid!! **But making a lvl 1 concentration spell so integral, just isnt compelling.. * Huh? it holds up to other classes damage wise. **Its still suffers from ‘feel bad’ features, the design is uninspired. *You can do good damage.
I'm with you here. Optimisers who are only looking for damage always played the same boring way every combat before, and they'll do it again now. Doing damage is the fun part to them so they'll have fun. People who want to mix it up and enjoy the variety that spellcasting brings are going to feel like they're playing a VERY dull class/subclass. As soon as they concentrate on anything besides HM, they lose almost every class feature unique to rangers, which makes them feel more generic and boring. You'd be better off as a fighter druid, all the same spells and fighting stuff with a bunch of extra class features. I feel like the designers built the whole class around Hunter's Mark not requiring concentration. Then, when playtests showed how OP that was, they walked it back but left everything else in place and the whole thing ended up half arsed.
I'm in the "Hunter's Mark isn't thenatic" camp, because, while the ribbon certainly matches the rangers theme, the main effect of the spell is just a damage boost. If you called it "duellist's mark", "fury's mark" or "master's focus" you could give it to fighters, barbarians or monks. It's like the genie, fey wanderer or rune knight bonus damage. There's just nothing "rangery" about dealing an extra d6 damage on every attack against one guy at a time. Compare HM to core features like Sneak Attack, Rage and Martial Arts; they all support the fantasy (hide or get an unfair advantage for big damage, shrug off damage, mix weapon attacks with kicks and headbutts)
You do omit some points: You always say how good mobility is, but didn't mention Ranger used to flat-out ignore difficult terrain starting at level 8 Proficiency bonus and Wisdom mod are a toss up at low levels, but when these features kick in Proficiency is almost definitely better Nature's Veil has been pushed back not 1, not 2, but FOUR levels In addition to Nature's Veil, Ranger could also Hide as a bonus action without limit
those removed features are a blow for sure - I had some good encounters with my old ranger where I kited enemies around difficult terrain (Plant Growth most often) while party members pelted them with spells. It'd be good to have, at least, immunity to Difficult Terrain that the Ranger's own spells create
I feel like this is also omitting things… like natures veil is one of the strongest class features among all classes, so of course it got pushed back. And it lacking anything it had before is made up in… well look at it… concentrationless greater invis that will last till the END of your next turn. Using that ONCE would’ve been a great feature in 2014 (with a SR cooldown). I feel like everyone is focusing on what pushes their narrative. Which means this class comes out of the wash being meh.
Nature's Veil being pushed from 10th to 14th level AND replacing Vanish (Hide as a Bonus Action and can't be tracked by nonmagical means) is detrimental. Land's Stride (ignore difficult terrain and advantage against Entangle and similar magical effects) wasn't amazing, but loosing this and Nature's Veil without getting replaced by new 8th- or 10th-level feature just underlines that there is little incentive to stay in Ranger beyond 5th level. @chrisgee8441 Firbolgs get Hidden Step, which is only slightly worse than how Nature's Veil was in Tasha's. I've never heard anyone complain that it's too strong at 1st level, so I see absolutely no reason not to leave Nature's Veil as it was at 10th level instead of buffing it slightly but moving it to 14th where it replaces and arguably better feature (Hide an unlimited number of times). Ironically, a Firbolg or a Tasha's Ranger can turn invisible 5 times per LR at 14th level, while the 2024 Ranger can only do it 2-3 times if they're prioritising Dex, Con, and feats that help them excel and survice in melee combat, leaving them with a +2 or +3 Wis modifier (as opposed to a +5 Proficiency Bonus).
Another stealthy buff to Hunter's Mark: it used to apply to weapon attacks only, but now applies to *any attack*. Presumably this is to accommodate Druidic Warrior builds (with, say, Produce Flame or Thorn Whip), but also works well for multiclasses that reliably make multiple spell attacks (such as a Stars Druid or a Warlock with Eldritch Blast). The Warlock use case is actually quite nice, since you get multiple free castings of Hunter's Mark and improved armor training with even a one-level dip, freeing up your Pact Magic slots for even more reliable noncombat utility.
The problem with tying the Ranger to Hunter's Mark is that it monopolizes your concentration and bonus action. You have to stop using HM when you want to use any other concentration spell and lose all features that require Hunter's Mark to be active. Foe Slayer comes way too late. Spellcasting is good, but you're limited if your class features require a specific spell that you need to concentrate on.
My problem with the Ranger is the marketing and the dependence on a single spell. This is basically a slightly improved Tasha's Ranger, only they were claiming this is all Brand New! The dependence on a single spell that is both concentration and BA heavy in an already BA heavy class is super restricting. At least for me, Ranger is designed around being free, granted that main freedom is about exploration/navigation, but still, it shouldn't feel restricting. With all of the class updates to the other classes, they felt like there was effort to make the classes more cohesive and less restricting, yet with Ranger they doubled down on the most restricting level 1 spell. Gave ability features that did make the spell better, but never made it less restricting.
I mean, to play Devil's Advocate, it was clear that Jeremy Crawford always meant "new... compared to the previous version of the PHB that this 2024 book updates". Was that a tad "marketing spin-y"? Sure. But it was clear what he meant so the complaint doesn't really work aside a general wish for"brand new " stuff. :)
One of the many reasons I'm more excited for DC20 than 5.24! The fact they kept saying "brand new" to mean "we put Tasha's stuff in now teehee" will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.
@@zTom_ From all the class reveal videos, almost all classes had verbal distinctions between new to PHB and brand new. Many of the Tasha's features were said to be added for Tasha's. The Rangers had the least mentions of Tasha's for the amount of content from Tasha's.
This is completely different than the Tasha's Ranger. And much much better. It's not BA heavy. Hunter's Mark is generally only going to eat 1 BA per fight.
@@dwil0311 This is Tasha's. They gave you extra expertise at 9 and 5 extra movement, changed Favored Foe to Hunter's Mark, and got ride of the Primal Awareness spells. Beastmaster, Drakewarden, and Horizon Walker use BA every turn if you choose plus Nature's Veil, albeit at later levels. HM taking only 1 BA per fight? I wish I had that experience.
I’m pretty sure that the wording on animal companion’s level 7 bonus actions is intended as they allow the beast to take any action if you use a bonus action but only allow the beast to attack if you give up one of your attacks.
I feel like level 13 should have removed concentration from Hunter's Mark, if not earlier. I don't feel like that would break the ranger. Right now, the ranger in my group never looks at their other spells because they feel like Hunter's Mark is a must, and that concentration slot is always used up. Everything else feels fine, they're strong but not overly so.
So, Chris. We get it, you are trying to find good sides of this new ranger. But honestly? It's FAR worse than 2014 in a lot of cases: - HM is just pure liability and unnecessary feature/spell - no class identity (that's just 5lv fighter and 15lv of druid with hex/warlock... Or just pure warlock) - Favored foe was, and probably still is strictly better in most cases - at the end of the video you picked spells that work specifically with HM... Thats not how classes should work! - Tasha and 2024 beastmaster wants to use basic attacks instead of wasting them on HM. At least before 11lv. After 11lv - that depends. Mostly still no, but at least it is not as bad. - there are better spells that requires concentration, like spike growth. I might be wrong, but i think you did at last one video about how broken this spell is. - would say that even ensnaring strike is just better than HM... Is ensnaring strike even there? - no 8lv Land's Stride feature, that with plant growth was one of the strongest Ranger features - conjure animals was the strongest Ranger feature. Now it is like at least 20times worse cause it can't tank, it deals ~16 insted of ~50-70 damage and cannot be used as fast escape, nor it can't be used as mounted fighting. And after all - 2014 beastmaster was honestly kinda good. The only "bad" features was that his beast could not attack during bonus action.
22:40 - I haven't reached subclasses yet (but just focussing on main class features for now) - you have definitely highlighted well that this ranger is really not that bad. BUT, I think what bothers me, is WotC had a chance here to make the rangers feel a little more unique, and these features just don't really do that for me. I feel like every other class got features that stand out and define them. 24:46 - so the problem is that their standout feature - Hunter's mark - is just not that interesting. The capstone is then just a kick in the teeth. If they had done what they did with other classes, and made it a resource like Second Wind, or Wildshape, that would have given the opportunity to do something intersting with it, that's different to its base use. I'm currently playing a ranger now (still level 1, so we'll see if they survive), and it's in a more narrative campaign - and I've actually elected to use some of the older Favoured Enemy and Primeval Awareness features. Because, while they may be mechanically useless, there are quite narratively interesting. I think Rangers would have been served well, by making those quirky features useful, rather than just flattening the whole class to a wisdom based half caster with expertise.
I'm fine with rangers but I have 3 concerns. 1) capstone 2) lacking in non concentration lvl 4 spells 3) subclasses have to bring it at 11 as that's where the t3 spike is. And hunters missed. Otherwise it's fine. 4) though not a ranger problem, bows are much weaker than TWF
Beast Master has an amazing level 11 feature. Fey Wanderer is pretty decent too. The others are indeed complete misses though. Edit: Fey wanderer is actually a miss too
Edit to 3. Just want to mention this works per turn which means reaction attacks work with hunter lvl 11. Optimize for sentinel. And it says when you deal damage to a creature affected by HM not when you deal HM damage. So all damage works on this.
Ranged attacks should be weaker than melee attacks. In fact, I don’t think they went far enough to nerf ranged attacks. If you don’t risk your own blood in battle, you don’t get to share in the glory.
It's really only hand crossbow which is worse (and that's my favorite change in the whole game as I hate hand crossbow with a passion). You can get up to +6 damage to all your longbow shots with great weapon master, which is better than the old sharpshooter damage buff since it doesn't come with -5 to hit.
The problem with the 2024 Ranger isn't its power or DPR, its the entire design. It lacks flavor, and many of its features require you to use Hunter’s Mark. So it's the class you'd only want to play if you plan on concentrating on Hunter’s Mark almost entirely. I made a homebrew Ranger with flavorful and mechanically useful bonuses depending on your preferred environment, a feature that makes them better at traps, a feature that helps them track and deal additional damage to a creature you are pursuing, the ability to have a beast companion if you want, and other cool features that make it great late game. If anyone wants to see it, let me know, its in a pretty PDF with art, and it's free
@Kivuhl That's another good point. Their power ceiling has lowered, even if their power floor has raised. DPR aside, I just don't like the 2024 Ranger's design
@@BenHameen33 Me too. I guess Ranger would be fine even as a reprinted class from tasha. Thing is - making HM (without changed mechanics) as a basic Ranger ability was probably the worst thing they could do.
One of the most effective uses for Escape the Horde might be to protect your allies against Opportunity Attacks, and/or other reaction effects... Like if you purposefully bait Opportunity Attacks at Disadvantage, the rest of your party should be able to move without needing to worry as much about getting attacked for moving out of range.
is it strong to get advantage on all attacks on hunter's mark when so many rangers will already have vex as one of their weapon masteries? like at the very least that feels bad right?
I think the problem with the new Ranger is that it didn't get the Monk treatment when popular perception was that it desperately needed a massive upgrade from 2014. Considering how many new toys all the other martials got and especially Monk the Ranger failed to have the same impact. That is why I think so many people are writing it off.
Great Weapon Master now works with a longbow and is a good way of getting extra damage for "free" (yes its a feat) on ranged attacks. At higher levels it will be more damage than the average Hunter's Mark roll.
Only sad part is you can only bump your str with it, so if you're focused at range it's a bit of a dead level, but yeah it's definitely an interesting combination available
You may sacrifice some Wisdom for getting 13 str, but it may be the best ranged build. The other ranged option is dual hand crossbows, but it overloads the BA traffic.
Chris, you're too focused on "spells are mechanically powerful". There is more to a class being designed well than just being powerful. You could take away fighters' weapon masteries and stuff and just give them the ability to cast Wish proficiency bonus times per short rest at level 1 and they'd be _powerful,_ they'd be the most powerful class in the game, but it would be bad design. It wouldn't deliver on the class fantasy and it would feel bad mechanically to the other members of the party AND the fighter, who would probably be bored with almost all content in the game. Rangers didn't have spells before 5e. Spells are not delivering on the Ranger fantasy.
Rangers should get a fix to Hunter's Mark by level 3 to work with and not disrupt subclass features. I got a house rule I'm ready to go Rangers at level 3 get "Second Nature" which is 1) Verbal component is optional for Hunter's Mark. Solves a lot of problems relying on Hunter's Mark and gives a bit reason to stick with class and Paladins don't need it . 2) Hunter's Mark can be cast or target transferred alongside any Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction limited to once per turn. I'm sure at some later point I could see Hunter's Mark keep concentration when paired up other Ranger list spells (including Hunter's Mark on a second target). I'm not sure when that should kick in for game balance.
I definitely wouldn't say the new ranger is bad, it's strongly improved from 2014, which also wasn't horrible the thing is, a few of its core features are underwhelming (mainly the hunter's mark stuff, which could have been way better features)
Having old Conjure Animals and Pass Without Trace was strictly better than the entirety of new ranger. You can't mathematically beat suprise round for the whole party, and you definitely can't beat a bunch of summoned cows in DPR.
@@GwenWynns well, first of all, those spells aren’t exclusive to the ranger, nor are they something every ranger necessarily has, they’re choices. Also, they’re few and specific aspects that were abusable, which is why they were so strong
@@GwenWynns Was going to post the same thing - 2014 Conjure Animals beats the DPS of the 2024 Ranger hands down (and has other benefits), while Pass Without Trace 2014 surprise was a party wide benefit of massive proportions. A slightly better Hunter's Mark at level 17 isn't making the 2024 Ranger stronger than the 2014 Ranger.
I was giving Treantmonk the benefit of the doubt and looking at the 2024 Ranger spell list. Hunter's Mark's upgrade is level 13, Relentless Hunter. At the same level, you get access to new goodies: 4th level spells. Except Freedom of Movement, *all of them* are Concentration. Treantmonk is pretty chill about this, and I can appreciate him being level-headed about the issue - but there's no going around it here: it's just plain bad design. Sure, the Ranger has spells but it conflicts with its main tool to augment damage (a rider rewarding multiple attacks). Would you think Arcane trickster was good if Concentration spells conflicted with Sneak Attack? would the Paladin Improved Divine Smite feel good if it was gated behind Concentration? I agree that Ranger spells are an asset, but the synergy here was worsened, not improved. Hunter's Mark would need to be much improved to warrant being this awesome choice at higher level that merits a doubling down on that spell for a total of 3 levels worth of class features spread through the Ranger's entire career (with the second arriving at a level some campaigns have already come to a close). The capstone, for example, is ridiculous... until you remember that during the playtest, they toyed with allowing Hunter's mark to upcast for more damage. Hunter's mark upcasted to level 3 would have done 3d6. A level 20 ranger upcasting Hunter's Mark at 5th level could have done _5d10 extra damage once per round_ ... if that had been the type of scaling used, the capstone would have made much more sense and felt much more rewarding. But it's not. Neither is what came previously. If Hunter's Mark was to remain more granular but become more of a staple for the Ranger, they should have taken after it's original iteration in 4th edition more. It staying a spell is just groan worthy, especially when it has more to do with the Rogue's sneak attack than the Paladin's smite. I can deal with the bonus action conflict, but I have to admit that the implementation of Tasha's Favored Foe made it feel like things clicked together much better in this respect. At the sum, it's a hodgepodge of too many things that don't mesh that well together. They could have smoothed it out, and they had the playtest to figure it out -- but they mostly squandered those opportunities. ------ Finally, I think the Hunter is a shadow of its former self. Losing Volley/Whirlwind Attack hurts a whole lot and the return doesn't seem much worth it. It smarts a bit because I liked the 3rd edition name allusion, but also because it was it unique way of catching up and really embracing the 'horde breaker' theme. If the wanted to streamline the whole to ape that, they could have chosen to increase with levels the number of adjacent targets that could be hit... but nooo. Do not pass GO, do not get cake.
It’s not that it’s a weak class, it’s that the design pushes you toward using Hunter’s Mark all the time. And sure, it’s an iconic spell, and it’s not really a bad spell, but it’s not a great spell either. It’s a mediocre spell. And yes we can still choose not to cast it, but that FEELS bad because then we’re missing out on a significant portion of our class features. So we then have to choose between using other more interesting spells, or using Hunter’s Mark and our features that go with it. And because concentration lasts so long for it, it’s not likely that we’re ever going to run out of our free uses of it. This version of Ranger basically feels like it’s Hunter’s Mark the class. It might be an okay class numbers wise, but it’s just not interesting.
Yeah. I would probably enjoy Hunter's Mark more if it had a bit more flavor to it. Even something as simple as "By combining their wilderness training and their magical connection with nature, Rangers are able to exert unparalleled focus on a single quarry."
The points you didn't address: 1) The took away all the Ranger's unique ranging abilities. Spellcasting and Expertise are generic substitutions. The Ranger should have something to allow it to excel in a unique capacity that other classes don't get in this regard. You overvalue spellcasting and ignore the thematic element of self-reliance that the Ranger should embody. At the very least they could have given Survival expertise for free alongside the 1 of your choice to make up for scrapping all other ranging features from the class. Then at least it would feel like the class actually had the tools built in to excel at survival, rather than being opt-in. 2) Hunter's Mark is poorly designed. It tries to do two things at once: be a damage rider and a tracking feature, but does neither thing well. The Ranger wants this spell for tracking (back to my first point, and my aggravation that they can't just let any ability exist that's not dependent on spellcasting), but you have to already be in sight of the target to use it. This makes no sense. Then as a damage rider it's fine, but being Concentration means it is an all-battle commitment or you lose your main damage buff to do something else (or if you just get hit, which severely hurts its reliability). When Paladins are getting Divine Favor, it seems like the only reason for this limitation is the one-hour duration, but the only reason for the one-hour duration is tracking. Thus the two goals of this spell are in conflict. You can't balance one role without making the other role overpowered or useless. This also means they can't give HM any feature to improve QoL until way later than most campaigns even play to, thus the spell doesn't meaningfully scale with the class. Put all that conflict together and you have an immensely unsatisfying spell/feature. Compare Smites, which have lots of different options with different rider effects, to HM which always does the same thing. HM just isn't exciting or tactically interesting, so making it hard to use on top of that just feels bad. 3) They cross-contaminate build priorities. The Ranger uses Wisdom for raw damage abilities like Dreadful Strikes and Beast Master's pet, for damage spells like Hail of Thorns, as well as for the usual utility/control saving throws. This means the Ranger has a very hard time focusing on any one role for a build. Maxing Dex first makes sense for a damage focused build, but then you get fewer uses of combat abilities from some subclasses. Paladins are much more consistent in splitting support and damage into different stats, and when then want a subclass like Devotion to focus on Charisma they give it a channel divinity to help offset that focus. Ranger's often end up chasing two stats for the same role, and I hate that design. Similarly, many of your BA options like HM, Command your pet, Hail of Thorns, etc, are all just doing damage in different ways. This isn't a meaningful choice like Paladin's Smite vs Lay on Hands vs Buff spells. Instead you are just picking different ways to do the same thing - not anything interesting. So put all that together and the Ranger is just discordant. It lacks focus, identity, and a fun gameplay loop. The power might be there, but the actual gameplay feel is severely lacking.
I think that Gloomstalker + Sharpshooter was just so good that while the class is basically exactly the same, probably about half of Ranger PCs got nerfed. Should it ever have been allowed to be that railroady to one build? Absolutely not.
@@KevUnchained Its not the equivalent of casting a 3rd level spell every turn, its the equivalent of casting a third level spell that has a duration. Being at will doesn't matter much in that situation.
Also, just as a point of comparison, at level 17, a Ranger gets several free castings of Hunter's Mark, which at that level deals an extra 1d6 damage per attack, with the Ranger having Advantage on the attack and cannot have their concentration broken by damage. A Great Old One Warlock with Pact of the Blade can combine Hex and Clairvoyant Combatant to deal 1d6 extra damage per attack, with advantage on all of their attacks against the target, while the target had disadvantage on all of their attack rolls against the Warlock and has disadvantage on ability checks and saving throws for one ability score chosen by the Warlock. Between the two, the Ranger has the benefit that it only takes one Bonus Action to apply Hunter's Mark, they get several free castings, and their concentration can't be broken by damage, while the Warlock needs 2 bonus action to apply both Hex and Clairvoyant Combatant, doesn't get any free castings of Hex, and their concentration on Hex can be broken by damage. The Warlock has the benefit where their concentration is harder to break due to their target having disadvantage on attacks against them, the target having disadvantage on ability checks and saving throws of the chosen ability score, the benefits of Clairvoyant Combatant remaining even if their concentration on Hex gets broken, and the fact that they can get all of these benefits at level 10 instead of 17. And if you don't include the saving throw debuff the Great Old One Warlock adds to Hex at level 10, they can still get all of the other benefits at level 6.
@treantmonk 54:11 the fact that you specifically had a list of spells, taken from the whole, rangers list, specifically to work around THE core feature of the class, shows the problem perfectly. You intentionally avoided all of the amazing concentration spells rangers have access to, (summoning spells, spike growth, entangle, guardian of nature, etc.) Because there are so many sources in both class and subclass, that make even wanting to concentrate on anything else feel terrible. A player should never feel that they have to tailor their entire spell list to work around a spell that is being pushed on them by the class as a whole. Anytime you concentrate on something else therell be that little voice in the back of your mind saying "should i have just used HM? Theres so many bonuses to it that this feels like a mistake." The current setup passively punishes people for not falling into the set archetype, which limits player freedom.
The same could be said about warlocks with EB and hex (more so in 2014). Yet I have never played a warlock with either spells known and it played perfectly fine. People are just trying to cope despite the new ranger being a perfectly viable and varied class. Maybe focus less on power gaming and trying to 'beat' your DM and just try to enjoy the game?
@gousmannetje the EB and Hex combo was good at low levels, then once 4th or 5th came, not so much. Concentration or slots in general were better used on stronger spells. The class wasn't really tied to Hex.
@@gousmannetjeas someone who has taken 2 different warlocks from level 1-20, I can honestly say that after level 5 hex was almost never used. Hypnotic pattern or hunger of hadar became the primary ones. But the thing is I had options, and I could choose to be a blaster that just did hex and EB or be a battlefield controller without having to lose my subclass. It really didn’t feel limiting at all and frankly EB would be taken by every class if they had access to it anyways. Most warlocks after level 5 don’t have much reason to use hex, since it just isn’t that good at high levels or even mid level like 5-9. With new ranger however, if you choose to not use hunters mark then I hope you aren’t playing a hunter or you basically become a really crappy fighter. God forbid you fight someone who can use an AOE attack and you lose concentration, now your dual-wielding nick build is hamstrung, ironically the only decent damage build since archer rangers are now trash damage wise with gloom stalker losing their nice bonus attack and sharpshooter damage buff removed. And since the two weapon fighting is basically the only decent damage build the ranger will be in melee to take hits and potentially lose concentration more. BM will also be miserable since commanding the beast is a BA, just like reapplying hunters mark. The only long term game I played a ranger in I never even took HM. I used zephyr strike more often and then spike growth. But if I did that now I have to lose half my class features. And frankly the level 20 capstone is just plain insulting. Nothing can justify that abomination. Not to mention the level 13 featuring being something useless since not many are using HM at that level and most will home brew it to be concentration free anyways. So you have a hand waved level 13 feature and a capstone that is just insulting, and if you do want to use your other features you have to cast a possibly suboptimal spell. Yeah no thanks, I appreciate the improvements to most classes but in this Tasha’s gloom stalker would eat the lunch of every ranger here and it’s not even close.
take a handful of concentration spells, as you get to higher levels, you'll have lots of free HM. Nothing wrong with dropping concentration on it for another concentration spell. My onednd 13th lvl ranger has spike growth and pass without trace (latter from wood elf) I mostly concentrate on HM but occasionally cast those spells as well. Therefore, I disagree with the first half of your comment. As game design, I can be persuaded either way whether rangers are being forced to use HM or not. In 5e, I'd have favored foe and wouldn't feel bad if I never used it. Same here, some parts of the subclasses buff HM but not enough to force you to concentrate on it all the time.
You have to approach hunter's mark differently in this situation. Don't treat it as your cool concentration spell to do cool things with, use it as the go to spell for whenever you AREN'T using your cool concentration spells. Having so many free usages of it means it's really easy to just drop hunter's mark when you want to use some other flashier concentration spell, then swap back to HM whenever you are done with that. Hunter's Mark is a one hour duration spell, meaning just one activation can last between multiple fights. Having multiple free activations of an hour long spell means it has a lot of uptime per day you can utilize, so burning a few free usages just to alternate between your flashier concentration spells and HM isn't nearly as much of an issue.
I would’ve loved for it to get rid of the need to concentrate on hunters mark rather than just making it harder to lose concentration. Stacking hunters mark swift quiver and magic weapon would be dope.
Here's the simple reasons why I think Hunter's Mark isn't iconic: The vast majority of the time it's just a bland bonus to your damage. That may be reasonably powerful, but it doesn't do anything interesting nor particularly characteristic of the ranger, neither mechanically nor narratively. The name doesn't change that and feels like the silly moon sorcerer from dragonlance that had all sorts of features with a moon theme like waxing and waning, yet the mechanics had absolutely nothing to do with those things. At least Hunter's Mark has the tracking thing, but that hardly ever comes up. A name without a matching game mechanic is skin deep. Reckless Attack is iconic: the mechanics create story and characterize the Barbarian's rage. Warlock invocations are iconic, they represent strange boons that the Warlock gets out of their pact with a powerful entity, the very conceptual core of their class. Getting spell slots back on a short rest otoh is NOT iconic, because it has zero narrative underpinnings, it's just a quirky mechanic that people got weirdly attached to. You could just as easily say it's Sorcerers who should get their magic back after a power nap.... Wizards being able copy spells into their spell book is iconic, as it encapsulates their approach to magic perfectly. Rangers getting to do more single-target damage at the press of a button, however, says nothing about who rangers are.
This. I've seen comparisons to Rage, which just doesn't feel genuine, and Paladin, which feels more fair (though this means Paladin SHOULD have free Smites equal to your Charisma modifier, which would ease the pain). It feels like either the base mark needs more interaction, or you could use different *kinds* of mark (like a burning mark, ensnaring mark, or marks that let you push or pull). Like, could really use a flavor blast or toybox
My homebrew fix for this: Let rangers cast Hunter's Mark not just on creatures they can directly see, but to target the creature indirectly, even if they haven't yet encountered them, via their tracks or other such traces. Then the tracking aspect of Hunter's Mark comes into play, and they're rewarded for engaging in their hunter-tracker fantasy by entering combat with a pre-cast damage boost (and potentially some additional information about the creature gleaned from the traces) when they do catch up to the creature. This would make Hunter's Mark the iconic ranger ability WotC clearly thinks it is.
Agreed. The 13th level feature should have been granted at 5th level, with 13th being you don't need to concentrate at all. Rangers are currently the only class that doesn't get a 5th level feature outside of Extra Attack.
The problem I have with 2024 Ranger isn't that its too weak. It's the fact that its going to be so reliant on Hunter's Mark to deal competitive damage, that 1. other damaging options that require concentration will never be used, and 2. the concentration of HM will interfere with their longer duration utility spells (primarily Pass without Trace).
I'm really disappointed in the hunter subclass. They took a half measure on increasing the flexibility of the level 3 feature. You should be able to choose which one you want every attack action. We already have an example of this to design philosophy with the swarm ranger. Being able to pick after a rest doesn't really accomplish what you needed to. Because what if you're going to fight through a bunch of hoards to fight a big giant monster at the end. You're going to want one of the level 3 options for the first part of that day and the other level 3 option for the BBEG. So you're still always going to want to pick the one that is best in the most situations meaning this changes very little.
What I really hate about it is how hunter's mark is now built-in but is still a spell and that it is somehow supposed to rival the other spells that require concentration
The levels that boosted Hunters Mark needed an additional feature not related to the spell in addition to the HM boost. Other classes received multiple features at different levels, the ranger feels rushed and one dimensional. All WC needed to do was say “here is your new level feature AND a slight boost to HM”
One of my players always plays a ranger and always uses Hunters Mark - he loves it. Don't generalise your personal experience to other players etc. etc.
I mean... Conjure Animals were annoying mechanically, but it WAS fun to play. And it gave this class free 50-70 damage per turn after 9lv, a lot of utility, easy escape and lot of roleplay funny shenanigans. Now this class deal like 1/3 of 2014 damage, has no utility, no escape and unnecessary HM as class feature.
I normally agree on just about everything you cover, but this is a video that I actually disagree on. Something that you don't address in this video is all the things that are taken away from the Ranger (using Tasha's rules). These are all the features that were removed without a replacement: -Primal Awareness -Land's Stride -Vanish These were all the features that received a nerf: -Canny being moved to second level -Tireless being tied to wis instead of prof -Nature's Veil being tied to wis instead of prof, as well as moving to 14th level from 10th No other classes got that many features removed without a replacement feature, or that many nerfs to features. The benefits that Rangers got were either small or given to all martial classes, essentially providing no boost to the class relative to the other classes, which is really how it should be compared. That's before even looking at the subclasses. The subclasses either remained mostly the same or were nerfed, while most other classes got improved subclasses. I'm guessing that when you say it's not the weakest subclass you're thinking of the Rogue, but being just above the Rogue in power level is still not a great place to be.
But it got more spells, and ritual casting! ...except that just brings it up to the spellcasting level of Paladins. But then Paladins get 10 free spells from every subclass, while Rangers get 5 from only half of them. Which of these classes has tons of incredible features, and which of them got the official "What do you mean you want class features? Don't you have spells and skill proficiencies?"
Not bad, just antisynergyc. They REALLY want you to always use Hunter's Mark, but by doing so, you can't use any other concentration spell and basically all the new ranger kit revolves around hunters mark anyway.
(preface: I think the Ranger is good. Better than 2014. New Rituals are great, better spells, weapon mastery, etc. my post became long, so heres the summary: 4 features for HM is too much, the upgrades might as well have been ribbons) HM feels very Ranger-y to me, and I think it makes sense thematically for it to have concentration. I just feel like the 3 extra features to buff it come way too late for what they're providing. 13 is by your admission not that useful, and 20 is recognized as poor by everyone. 17 is good, but you can get semi-reliable Advantage with Vex since level 1. While rangers get unbreakable concentration for a spell they have too many free uses of, Monks are getting to Deflect Energy like a character straight out of an anime. While rangers increase their chances of landing hits with the same attacks they've always been making, Wizards are getting to feel like archmages by casting Meteor Swarm, and Fighters feel like super heroes with a 2nd Action Surge flurry of attacks (that they can swap out masteries with on each hit by now) on top of their 3rd Legendary Resistance. After typing this out, I think I realized what makes it feel so lame to me; the numbers are there, but there's nothing to do, nothing new to choose. Paladins have Smite, but their spell list has new Smites with different effects as they level up, so it feels like giving Divine Smite options. Rage, Sneak Attack, Second Wind, Focus, all of these get new ways to use them as you level. Meanwhile, the level 20 Ranger is fighting in the same way with the same tactics as the level 5 Ranger. The only special action you get is giving Temp HP as a whole Action, and turning invisible for 1 turn, which is probably the Ranger's most fun ability, but it's only 5 times per Long Rest. All the rest are passive buffs, so your numbers are improving while your options aren't, besides spells. Which are great! But other classes get spells on top of more choices to make in their actions and tactics. I think it's fine to base your class on a core ability, but every other class and subclass has been designed in 2024 to give that core ability options instead of just upgrading its numbers, while the Ranger feels left behind. Just don't think it needed 3 features to upgrade it with "eh" effects. Even ribbons that give something new to do would have been better. Maybe move the Advantage feature to 13, and give something new to 17 and 20. Each of them being just 1 line of text doesn't help them feel less like of an afterthought either.
I don't think the Ranger class is weak I just think it's poorly designed. I mean no matter which way you decide to play it, either by ignoring Hunter's Mark and losing out on a good chunk of class features or by diving head long into Hunter's Mark and forgoing other good possibly better concentration spells, it feels like you're playing to only half your potential.
The whole ranger interaction with wotc is like a divorce lawyer but not being allowed a counter offer. We gave you the camper(but not the truck to use it or house which is independently useful) we gave you the dog (we didn't want) and we gave you part of the business but you have to sell your own to split the assets. You also can keep some of your assets the other side dosen't want. Be grateful.
Why is the new feral senses a significant improvement, when (unless i'm misinterpreting) the old feral senses allowed me to shoot from even 300ft away while inside a fog cloud with no disadvantage, and the new one forces me to be within 30ft from the target?
It's not really a factor because you can still take great weapon master which works with long bows. So you are still getting consistent extra damage without the chance of missing because of that penalty. Plus since magic weapon is not concentration you are also getting more damage and attack.
@@phillconklin382 except that you need 13 Str to quality for the GWM feat, which gives you another +1 to Str that you don't need. So you have to sacrifice Wisdom, which cripples several class and subclass features as well as spells.
Even after this video, still not convinced that this ranger is all that great. Ted (Nerd Immersion), myself, and others are on the same boat that if the Fey Wanderer can reduce Summon Fey to 1 minute and no concentration, then Hunter's Mark can get the same treatment. 22:01 Nature's Veil also came online at 10th in Tasha's, but now it's 14th. So, saying it's "improved" is a bit misleading. I think I'd rather get a "weaker" ability early than a "stronger" ability later, and probably well after a point where most campaigns have ended. 26:54 Unless WotC comes out and says you can sacrifice your Nick attack for your beast's attack, I don't know that many tables will accept that. 29:00 All of the companions now use your Wisdom modifier instead of PB for Armor Class and extra damage. A ranger typically doesn't have anything higher than a 16 because Str, Dex, and Con are more important. So, instead of having AC +6 and dealing +6 damage at 17th level, the companions are going to be stuck with AC +3 and +3 for the majority of the game. That feels bad. If the companion actually scaled with the ranger, that'd be a completely different story. The only actual proven "buff" here is the ability at 11th level. Changing the damage from magical to force just shows what the monsters in 2025 are going to be looking like (ie. magical damage doesn't really mean much anymore). 43:37 Not true. Iron Mind has always given you the option of getting Intelligence or Charisma saving throws if you already had Wisdom saving throws. 51:14 Defensive Tactics also had Steel Will, which gave you advantage on saving throws against the frightened condition. It'd have been nice to have kept that, and added Charmed as well, much like the Fey Wanderer. Multiattack and Superior Hunter's Defense are both very different. Wish those options had been moved to lower levels if they were just going to remove them altogether. Rangers should have evasion.
Why would you prioritize Str and Con over Wis if you are a half caster? If you go Str over Dex for weapons then you want wis as you second stat increase so your spells doesnt suck
My problem is the level 13 feature does nothing to solve rangers real issue, which is hunters mark competing for your concentration. It should have instead allowed you to cast it without concentration for a shorter duration (1 minute) like so many other core class/subclass features do in 2024 with their signature spells. This is how I will be homebrewing it in my games.
Thank you so much for this video! Rangers are my favorite class along with Wizards and I'm super glad to see your positive outlook of the new class, can't wait to play with the new beastmaster!
I think it is less the mechanical power of the Ranger, but rather the same problem it has had for the last umpteen editions (perhaps sans 4e): the design doesn't quire hit the itch/fiction/feel that many gamers have of the class. That, and designing a lot of the base class features around Hunter's Mark while still keeping it concentration. The Ranger already had a problem with many of their key spells requiring concentration.
In my opinion Horde Breaker is now Hunter's best ability. It allows them to apply weapon masteries to multiple targets while still using its main attacks to focus down one enemy. Plus with their upgraded spells they're almost as effective at fighting two enemies as they are at focusing one.
I think the ranger is objectively better than it was before even after the fixes and Tasha's. However building a class around a level 1 spell that requires your concentration and requires your bonus action and doing nothing to mitigate those two factors is bad design. It just feels bad to have multiple features as you increase in level require you to use a spell that was only good for the first few levels. I think the Dungeon Dudes said it best, there's still no reason to take ranger past fifth level.
The level 5 issue was present in the UAs too and multiple people pointed it out, so no way WotC didn't know about it. Switching to Rogue, Druid or Cleric from level 6 onwards just seems to yield far better results then staying pure Ranger.
Yep, this exactly. For certain builds just 3-4 would suffice. If say at lvl 6 you could mark HM as a part of your attack action & lvl 7 HM becomes concentration free you’d be incentivized to stay with the class.
The one buff is that now that multiclassing increases spell slots by half levels, level 5 is now a better time to multiclass into a full spell caster than before
I feel like there’s a WotC class designer watching this video and pumping their fist going “Yes! This guy gets what I was doing!” (Assuming they haven’t been laid off during all the cuts. *sigh*)
Given the overwhelming negative reaction to the Ranger, I would be shocked if that designer would keep their job, because, why would they if everyone hates their Ranger?
If they're gone, it's because their name got picked out of the hat when the shareholders demanded Hasbro start getting rid of people to artificially inflate the stock price by cutting overhead.
Dan Dillon used to work for wotc and has some great podcasts on ranger. He seemed to be the only wotc employee who loved rangers. But it seemed he was gone before 2024 was designed.
The reason it's not about being bad or good. It's that the base class is inherently married to that spell mechanic. There are more than one feature that focus on it that could be any other thing. The worst part it's that influence subclasses here and in the future. Hunter it's the example.
I think the 13th level feature should have removed the requirement of using a bonus action to transfer once you killed your foe. That would have felt really nice.
Getting weapon mastery is good, the focus on hunter's mark is awful. Being pigeon holed into having to use one specific spell to achieve maximum effectiveness is a huge design mistake that you would think these designers could easily avoid.
and they did avoid when redesigning features like wildshape. how they turned around and did this to the ranger after winning with wildshape's flexible usages i will never know.
@@deffdefying4803 Especially when WotC's designers were proud of the fact that they moved away from this model with the warlock and Agonizing Blast, which was told to them in the surveys by people that they didn't like that, but doubled down on rangers for some reason.
New ranger doesn't strike me as very "druidic warrior" or "survivalist". The old features were bad mechanically but were top of the class for flavour imo - you actually used your surroundings to camouflage yourself by packing mud and leaves and whatever onto your armour, or had personal experience traversing a specific terrain, or had a preternatural sense for specific creatures (especially within that specific terrain). Now it's just "you turn invisible" or "you cast hunter's mark slightly better" or "you cast hunter's mark slightly better" or "you cast hunter's mark slightly better" or "you cast hunter's mark slightly better". It's basically fighter with "Concentration D6" and half a spell list - of which you can only use half, if you are using Concentration D6, so really, a quarter of a spell list.
I love your comment, and I fully agree. Classes get more powerful with each D&D iteration, but less flavourful. I would have kept the old class features to make a ranger feel like a ranger. I do not want to look like an old grognard, there are many things that are improved from the old editions (THAC0, spell balance, martial caster divide etc etc) but the "taste and soul" of the game are kind of lost, and this is even more evident with the 2024 ranger. Such a shame.
All the mechanical optimization arguments in the world don't change the fact that ranger lost all its flavor, theme, and the basic purpose the class was created to fulfill in the first place. Any class can deal damage. Ranger is supposed to be the class that makes the rest of the party excell at wilderness exploration, tracking, and travel on the world map. The 2014 ranger failed these because the 2014 version of Ranger's favored terrain feature was just a list of ribbon abilities that said, "You don't have to worry about travel in your terrain type." On top of the fact that the base PHB said, "Don't worry about travel or wilderness exploration. Just skip it." Tasha's ranger failed because it's an example of the old Henry Ford quote. "If I asked my customers what they needed, they would have told me a faster horse." WotC asked the internet what ranger needed, and a bunch of chuds said, "Moar Hunter's Mark." The 2024 reprints fail to fix ranger because the game still does not have an exploration pillar or decent rules for overland travel. And Hunter's Mark is still a trap. It shouldn't be in the game. I fixed Ranger for my players. The first thing I did was remove Hunter's Mark from the game. The second thing I did was buy the WebDM Weird Wastelands book for all my wilderness travel needs. The third thing I did was replace the favored terrain and enemy type features in the phb with a favored Mana feature. At levels 1, 3, 6, 14, and 20 Rangers pick one of the colors of mana from Magic the Gathering. All creature types, terrain types, classes, backgrounds, and factions are tied to one or more colors of mana. Your favored mana picks give you a list of bonuses that add damage on weapon attacks, advantage on dex, int, and wis checks, and boost travel speeds and social/treasure rolls while traveling and dealing with anything tied to any of your favored mana colors. The solution to the limited choices of creature and terrain type was never to throw those choices away. It was always going to be replacing those limited specific choices with broad category choices that cover everything in the game with 6 or so big categories. WotC has those broad categories that cover terrains, creature types, class, background, and factions, but they're never going to use the themes and world building from the card game to fix mechanical problems with the role playing game because a bunch of chuds online riot whenever anyone mixes chocolate and peanut butter.
My gripe with the 2024 ranger is that i feel like it lost a sense of identity. It feels more like a hitman or bounty hunter than it does an explorer, and really the 2014 ranger only had issues that could be solved with a session zero or a conversation with the dm if you're joining the campaign part of the way through
I don't dislike Ranger because it's not strong enough. I dislike Ranger because I dislike Hunter's Mark, and now it's Hunter's Mark: The Class. If you try to ignore HM, you're giving up 4 class features, as well as potentially subclass features. Rangers should not have so many features tied to a singular boring spell.
14:00 One change to Nature's Veil that you missed: in Tasha's it was a level 10 feature, now it's level 14. Despite the improvement to it, that's one of the changes I'm disappointed by. I used it lots in a previous campaign that ended at level 13, so with this Ranger I never would have got it at all.
Why the new Hunter's Mark for the 2024 Ranger is bad: Imagine if Paladin's Smite used up FOUR of the base class's feature slots (3 of them at high tier play levels) AND required you to maintain concentration. Imagine if the Paladin lost Radiant Strikes, Restoring Touch, and their Subclass Capstones in order to make way for features that would "improve" Smite... Now, you don't HAVE to use Smites as a Paladin. You have other spells and features you could use. But you'd be rendering four of the base class's features useless if you do.
I cant say i dont like your relentless positivity, chris. Its a breath of fresh air in what can be a sea of grumpiness, but think here youre reaching to try and be positive about this class. I feel theres a very valid complaint about action economy overlap and tying a classes identity to a single spell. Telling ranger players "oh you just need to take this very specific fighting style and use this very specific weapon mastery and your bonus action is freed up" doesnt feel like a good mechanical choice. Its an obligation imposed on players to overcome a bad mechanic. It limits the number of ranger builds not in a thematic way, but in a way that players feel like otherwise they'll be underplaying their class. BUT. Leaning into that playstyle of hunters mark locks them out of other spell uses that also ise concentration. you yourself have spoken about how 2014 4-elements monks had a terrible choice of either burning their class resource to cast unsatisfying spells or playing a subclassless monk. Well here i feel rangers have a choice of either - using hunters mark at the expense of their other spells (spells which you yourself extolled as being a great class feature) Or - using hunters mark sparingly so as to benefit from all that the classes spellcasting has to offer but feeling like theyre missing out in the core features that hunters mark now provides. We hated it when the trickery cleric had to burn their concentration on their illusory duplicate, why is it any different for rangers? Once again, the ranger has no class identity, and this time, it seems like this is the case because WotC couldn't decide if they should be a spellcaster or not. Hunters Mark has become a quasi class feature, the sorta thing you would do if you were completely removing spellcasting but wanted to keep that mechanic as a spell-like ability. In that context, with nothing else to take up your concentration, it can work. But expecting the ranger to also be a half caster is splitting the characters' mechanical play and identity too much. We harp on and on about how 2014 warlock pigeonholed them into only using EB and how no matter what invocations you added to make it do more things, it didnt overcome the issue that warlocks just felt like they had one play to make. Well its 2024 and rangers have the exact same problem now. Hunters mark is intrinsically tied to their class. Yes it gets benefits which do things beyond just the vanilla text of the spell, but it feels like it's all rangers should be doing if they want to get the most out of their class. And given that using it locks you out of a large number of spells, you basically have an intolerable conflict between a classes features. Ranger. Bad
The problem I have with Hunter's Mark is that it says "I'm not an awesome hunter because I studied monsters a lot, it's just because I know this spell... skill has nothing to do with it." And that sucks.
It also is completely devoid of flavor. Sure, being asked "Orcs or Undead" for your favored enemy sucked, but this? Getting a spell that grants you extra damage to every foe. There's nothing favored about that. Nothing inherent to the ranger in fact - just as you say, you're not more special than anyone else picking up that spell.
@@angelagranger760 rangers are the only ones who can cast the spell, other than vengeance paladins, where it is a good thematic fit, and people who take fey touched, where I will admit is a bit of a miss, but if you're taking fey touched for hunter's mark that's kinda whack.
For me, it's less that Rangers are bad or weak, and more that if you don't use Hunter's Mark you effectively lose features as a Ranger. As you level up, there are few incentives to continue investing in levels of Ranger beyond higher level spells and buffs to Hunter's Mark. So if you don't use Hunter's Mark, there's little incentive beyond the higher level spells, which you can gain faster and with additional features by switching out to Cleric or Druid ASAP. I'm seeing it as a major problem for specifically the half-casters in this version. There was effort put into giving more powerful and interesting features for the pure martials at later levels, so even if they aren't strictly as powerful as the full casters, there are reasons why someone would want to take a martial to high levels. For the half-casters, their biggest high level features are their spells, but their spells scale more slowly than the full casters, so the pressure is to dip your toes into the half-caster class to pick up their early level martial features, then jump ship to a full caster to also gain access to the more powerful full caster spells. With Ranger 5/Druid 15 or Ranger 5/Cleric 15, for instance, you get the most important Ranger martial features, while not even giving up access to 8th level spells and 9th level spell slots. At lower tiers, where most campaigns are starting to wrap up, Ranger 5/Druid 5, Ranger 5/Cleric 5, and Ranger 10 all have access to 3rd level spells, but the multiclass builds get access to 4th level spell slots and have 2 more spell slots overall.
The wording for beast master is weird. It says "You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Beast’s Strike action" This wording kind of leads me to believe you can give up both your bonus action and one attack action. So attack once with the range and twice with the beast Then when you get to level 11 each of those beast attacks becomes 2 attacks Probably not intentional and just bad wording but I think it does a good job of boosting the beast companions damage
Any class that can inherently take advantage of heavy weapons and has access to spells can't be the worst class in the game, period. There's a reason arcane trickster is the best rogue subclass.
@@Wanderingsage7Basically the premise is that Heavy Weapons enable the Great Weapon Master feat, and half casting is a very powerful feature on a class that already gets Weapon Masteries, notably with the various CC features on the Ranger spell list. The fact that Ranger can also cast Hunter's Mark without expending a slot means they can potentially use HM as a Bonus Action to get niche value like which you can get from the Hunter subclass, then use their Action to cast a leveled spell (thereby sidestepping the single spell per level restriction).
Ha, I strongly disagree on Arcane Trickster being the strongest. How can it be the best if the Soul knife can kill creatures without leaving marks? Spells leave evidence. Besides the best is subjective. I personally like Thief because I get superior mobility with a climb speed and enhanced leap. I like that it can remain hidden with a superior sneak. I love that a character can get so good at using random magic items that eventually a thief can attune to 4 magic items. Am I right? Idk, not for me to say. All I can say is I think Thief is the best form of Rogue subclasses.
I think with your interpretation of the how the Beastmaster interacts with the nick property, you can make a SAD Ranger focused on wisdom. Grab Shillelagh, a club or quarterstaff, and another nick weapon. Attack with your club or quarterstaff using wisdom through shillelagh, then replace the nick attack with a beast attack that uses wisdom. This also frees up your bonus action to move around HM, or possibly another bonus action attack if you grab PAM.
Good point, but it only works with the Club, since Quarterstaff isn't light. That said, the 7th-level feature specifically says that the companion only gets to use its Bonus Action when you spend yours: _"When you take a Bonus Action to command your Primal Companion beast to take an action, you can also command it to take the Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action using its Bonus Action."_
I don't think 2024 Ranger is weak, but I do think the emphasis on Hunter's Mark is bad. I've heard people say "just don't cast HM if you don't like it," but that means loosing out on four base class features, along with HM conflicting with Beastmaster while also being directly tied to one of its features, and two features of the Hunter. It isn't necessarily bad to cast HM without spell slots, but it feels bad to be pushed to use it by so many features which don't even make it as strong as what it competes with (concentration spells and bonus action abilities/spells) by the time you get the upgrades. Honestly, I'd probably be fine with HM being the ranger's central focus if the level 13 feature was either removing concentration or, since that would probably have been too strong, allowing you to cast it on hitting an enemy without using a bonus action on your turn (without even removing the bonus action to move it). That would admittedly conflict with level 17's advantage to attacks, unless it was applicable on atack rather than on hit, but still, it'd overall lessen the conflicts with other, better features. It's like how Spiritual Weapon was suboptimal, but people used it since it lacked concentration. If HM didn't conflict so heavily with other things you want to do, it'd be great to have and use.
@@finalfantasy50 Clerics used it a lot, but it's suboptimal mainly because other options will generally be better at killing quickly, or helping your team kill quickly. For example, you can cast spiritual weapon to deal, assuming you hit, an average of 7 damage to a single target. Or, you can cast hold person and, if they fail their save, completely disable their ability to do anything while giving the entire team advantage to hit and guaranteed critical damage if they hit with the advantage you've given them. Or you can cast bless on your allies and make them all significantly more likely to land attacks and succeed on saves. If the arena is good for it, you can cast silence in a location that effectively disables enemy spellcasters unless they want to run right up to your allies. If you really need to be doing damage, right this moment, and not just assist your allies in doing damage, Guiding Bolt is a decent spell still around when you get spiritual weapon. It's damage now, not damage later, and still just a first level slot. I'm not an optimizer, so I don't really know all of the reasons why it's suboptimal, but there's many good options for you to cast on the first round of combat that can make things go way more smoothly way faster, because of the restriction on casting leveled spells with bonus actions and actions. Of course, there are still situations where you may want to use spiritual weapon. But generally there are much better things to do on your first turn of combat, and spiritual weapon needs to be up for several rounds of combat to be worth a second level spell slot (assuming you're even able to get it to an enemy each turn, since a 20-foot movement speed is relatively slow compared to some spells you can move, alongside most creatures' speeds).
@@finalfantasy50 spiritual weapon has 20 feet of movement per round which most creatures you'd want to use it on will outrun in a cinch
2 місяці тому+1
It seems to me that the biggest problem is the class identity. What is a Ranger? An expert in navigation and orientation? Scouting and infiltration? A nature expert? Tracking creatures? A mix of all these? Nothing in the class (perhaps with the exception of tracking creatures with Hunter's Mark) makes the Ranger truly unique. Many classes can perform these roles better than the Ranger. Nothing in its abilities or spell list truly enhances these roles. A Druid can do all of this better than a Ranger. Heck, even a Wizard, with the right build, can.
The problem with ranger class here is that Hunter's Mark badly interacts with your Spellcasting, preventing you to cast other concentration spells, and with your class features, often requiring bonus actions. Moreover, some features are just a joke. Deft explorer doesn't make you an explorer, Foe Slayer doesn't make you slay anything with such a low increase, and relentless hunter is completely useless, and a missed opportunity. If they just made a level 5 feature for ranger to make it move HM with attacks, made level 2 Deft explorer a little cooler, removed concentration on HM at level 9 or 13, and thought out something actually cool for level 20, we would've had a totally different opinion on this class.
I think the problem is not that Ranger is weak. I think the problem is that a few features are just bad design. A lot of the Ranger seems pretty good and fun. The thing is that those few features make the ranger more powerful, but at the same time more bland. They also pose an anti synergy with other ranger features, which always feels bad. Hunters mark is one of the most boring and bland spells in the entire game imo. It doesn't do anything really that interesting, nor is it really that flavourful. Basically you just do a little more damage and not even in an evocative way, but just: When you hit something your enemy hurts a little more I guess. So having that spell be included in so many features feels bad. It incentivises you to be more boring with your character and choose power over fun. The beastmaster you mentioned is also pretty bad design in a way. You mentioned how good two weapon fighting is with it, but that's basically the one thing it's great with early on. So you have the choice as a player to have two weapon fighting or being a worse character. Very exciting... I think players again are good at spotting bad game design, but many can't quite put their hands on why it's bad. I certainly don't think it's power, but rather how it interacts with other ranger features and how it takes away flavour and interesting things to do, by overshadowing them.
Friendly reminder that whatever blocks hunter's mark also blocks everything that builds on it. Examples include: monsters with spell immunity, nondetection spell, mind blank spell, amulet of proof against detection or location (uncommon item), counterspell, counterspell-like monster abilities, rod of absorbtion and similar effects. Basically any major villain or boss monster worth its intelligence score will deny your mark or waste your actions trying to apply it.
The problem with Ranger is it went from 2/5 to a 3/5 at time when other things were fixed and it isn't the first time they have had a run at this. To make matters worse some of the few thing people liked most have been reeled in. There's very little new here that was not in Tasha's. The newness is largely pumped into Hunter Mark and that makes this class clunky - that spell is the biggest problem with the class and if Warlocks had half their power forced into Hex people would have the same opinion - Warlocks aren't even that forced into Eldritch Blast.
The attack granted by the light property is a CONDITIONAL attack with 2 conditions. Attack with a light weapon, AND attack with a different light weapon. You couldn’t swap it out for something else such as a beast attack, as you would fail to satisfy the 2nd condition and would lose the attack. By RAW you could only swap it out for an option that specifically lets you replace the conditional attack granted by the light property. It’s not a normal attack that you can use however you see fit. It can ONLY be used for that conditional attack, or you don’t get it at all. A TWF beast master can only sacrifice an attack and use nick after attaining extra attack.
57:35 The rules clearly say the beast only gets its bonus action if you use your bonus action to command it. Please don't imply these rules are unclear. If your DM lets your beast Dodge (Dash etc) when you sacrifice an attack to command it, that is definitely a house rule. Please don't grade the subclass based on houserules.
@@thomasquesada7248 how is it wrong when the level 7 feature is literally "When you take a *Bonus Action* to command your Primal Companion beast to take an action, you can also command it to take the Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action using its Bonus Action."?
Engine might work now but the car is still ugly. The big downer for me is that the prepared spell change for the ranger was great and could really flavor the spells as being like tools in batmans utility belt, changed out for the occasion when the ranger gets 'prep time' going in. Then they go and remade the same mistake with stunning strike in monk, pouring so much class power into a single feature that it ruins the class. Hunters Mark should be a singular tool in the Rangers bag, not a resource specifically to turn the martial mode on. Hunters Mark: Bonus Action, Lasts 1 Minute: You mark a creature and observe its movements and attacks. When you deal damage with an attack, you may consume the mark and deal +1d6 force damage to the target. At the start of a new round of combat if the mark hasn't been consumed this damage increases by an additional +1d6 force damage this affect can occur a number of times equal to your proficiency modifier. There, now it's a smite you have to bake, making it perfect for securing a kill or investing in future damage with a slight drawback that it can be wasted. I just want something like that, and not to have class features shovel the option down my throat.
Beast Master continued to be the "feels bad" ranger archetype, I see. Absolutely riddled with anti-synergies in ways the other archetypes don't subject you to. I don't care if you assure me it's mathematically on par with the others on damage (as long as you are two weapon fighting). I should not be seeing my base class fight against my archetype when I'm playing my character.
The subclass that intrigues me the most is the Hunter because all of their abilities should be within the main class and be core mechanics exclusive to rangers. The replacement subclass should be an elemental archer, who instead of using spells uses their spell slots to give effects to their projectiles. Something similar to the Paladin Smites, like searing arrow, thunderous arrow, divine arrow, wrathful, blinding, and banishing arrows for different effects and not having to cast spells aside from the physical attacks, because the Ranger is not a Druid.
Small correction: At 17:49 I say that Rangers get 3rd level spells at level 5, I meant 2nd level spells. Wouldn't that be great if they got 3rd level spells?
I took it as "one may get extra attack at level 5 as a feature, others may get 3rd level spells" but kudos to own up to the mistake!
I think you overvalue half-casters. People don't simply forget spells are part of the class - they want to play a Drizzt say, and not somebody casting spells long after the main caster gets them.
Saying someone undervalues spellcasting (and therefore the class isn't that weak) effectly means telling them they shouldn't try to make the Ranger work as a martial class; they should be satisfied by patching up their martial shortcomings by casting mediocre spells the party caster could cast much better.
What would be great is if we ever got option class features to convert spell slots into stuff actually useful to the bowman or two-weapon fighter or beastmaster. You know, like how the 2014 Paladin was a success simply because the design allowed players to forget about the half caster spell list and just view slots as something useful for the martial build that many players want paladins/rangers to be.
Paladins still can with Divine Favor@@user-wm3hu7lo1g
@@user-wm3hu7lo1g or you could just play a fighter/rogue. Given how powerful spells are, even lower levels ones, and better than many martial features, I think you are going to find yourself in the vast minority, and its a bit late to complain about rangers having spells as that's been established for decades now. And the smite every turn 2014 Paladin was a poorly played paladin. You want to play a full martial--play a full martial.
I think you could use the same bonus action from casting/marking HM for command your beast on Beastmaster
0:30 Jokes on you, I was already subscribed, you can't trick me into playing your games!
Dammit!
Suckers! I clicked the subscribe button twice!
Listen to this man's treachery 😂
I knew I'd think the ranger is good enough before you even made this video, so I pre-subscribed! Jacques!
Unsubscribe and resubscribe
A really easy analogy for what they could have done with Hunters Mark is the update to Wild Shape with the Druid. It’s called Hunter’s Mark, not Ranger’s Mark. Make the Hunter class get a bunch of fun stuff to do with HM. Give HM availability to the other subclasses but give them other fun things to do with the expended charges, like they did with Druid.
This! HM features should be specific to the Hunter, not present in the base class
Exactly. Or, they get a Mark feature in level 1. And then it changes to Hunter's- , Stalker's , Warden's , and Beast's Mark at level 3.
And for god's sake, don't make this a spell. This should be the core feature of the class and scale with ranger levels.
One thing you seem to have missed: It appears that Immunities is now a blanket term that covers both damage types and conditions. This makes the Hunter subclass' ability particularly useful. Knowing which creatures have immunity to the charmed, prone, frightened and paralysed conditions can make a huge difference to the tactics a party employs.
If thats true, that completely changes hunters lvl 3 feature, thats a great niche!
Your question in the beginning sort of depends on how you define "worst class". It's not the weakest class in the game. You get Extra Attack, a Fighting Style, Weapon Mastery and Half-Casting and those features alone are enough to make a decent character, but I think it's the worst designed class, because you don't get a lot beyond that. The only other features I actually like are expertise and the climb/swim-speed at level 6, since the feel very on brand. However many of the problems the Tasha's version had, still persist. You still get very little past level 5 or 6. You still don't have any features that make the Ranger feel unique (Things like, Rage, Sneak Attack, Actions Surge, Smite, Flurry of Blows). Even Hunter's Mark isn't exclusive to the ranger and it still has most of the issues as the 2014 version and upgrades only start coming at level 13 and most of them seem to weak.
I could go on, but I don't want this to turn into a long wall of text, but the TL DR version is: I think Ranger only got gimmicks instead of actual changes, despite needing them and it's now the class I'm the least exited to play. It's one of the few things I'm actually negative about with the new edition and I'm a bit disappointed thb, so I apologize for the rant.
Thank you for your coverage of the new PHB, Chris.
That was very well said.
One thing you didn’t mention all classes, including ranger, have ritual casting now and Ranger has 12 to pick from, all of which are solid!
I was gonna mention this for the eldritch knight video too
Unfortunately, raw ritual casting interrupts your concentration on hunter's mark.
@@MumboJ oh nooooo…anyways.
@@MumboJ You have so many free Hunter's Mark casts, NBD.
The issue is that it's boring, not weak. Focusing so much on Hunter's Mark also doesn't do it favors.
This 👆
absolutely agree , hunters mark is a terrible crutch and they shoulda incentivsed players to use other spells that are much better options for their concentration
Boring, repetitive AND weak. It got improved, yes, but is no near at all compared to all the other classes, even the rogue (despite having its dpr a little nerfed) got some cool extra tools.
@ShadowGeek12 they did incentivize that, by giving us all those free uses. Dropping HM to concentrate on something else for a while e.g. PWT or Enhance Ability while exploring are therefore a lot less painful
@@PsyrenXY great, 5 free uses for the classes core mechanic. What happens when you're out of all your hunter's mark uses (spell slots included)? Half your class features no longer function, including your capstones. That's really bad character design. Even full spellcasters have contingencies when out of slots.
I have a tinfoil hat theory that the reason the Hunter's level 11 feature is so bad is because it was designed with the version of Hunter's Mark that was present in the playtest, the one that only worked once per turn but scaled on number of d6s, and they forgot to change it when they rolled back the changes to Hunter's Mark.
Overall the class does fine in terms of power, but it feels super bad when selecting your spells, as close to half of the spells in the Ranger's list need concentration, and its not very intuitive to have to give up multiple class features in order to use them.
Its not weak by any means, its just a feels bad class.
I think that the capstone has the same problem, if you could upcast to 5d10 rather than 5d6 once per turn (at 5th level spell slot) it would feel much stronger, but it sucks as it is.
I've been saying all along that the 13th level feature should just buff all Ranger Concentration spells. not just HM. I like a Reliable Concentration version where the check cannot be lower than Wisdom Score, but even advantage would be fine. I do think if they are going to just buff HM, allowing it to be cast by replacing an attack would be good. Maybe stacking with Reliable Concentration.
What I've done was making Rangers be able to concentrate on two spells having disadvantage on concentration saves when doing so. My players have been enjoying it A LOT, and it feels like a simple "fix" to that boring gameplay loop around Hunter's Mark
me personally, i dont like how so many of the class and subclass features are tied to hm. especially when a) its a spell that mimics abilities that shouldve been core to ranger itself b) those features again feel like something the ranger themselves should just be able to do and c) it kinda punishes you for not using it. if instead hunters mark was a class ability that i got to use similar to like the channel divinity of a paladin, i think i wouldve been much happier with the end result. that being said, ive heard you and i now see potential in this new ranger. still not were i wouldve liked it to end up but im not as angry with it as i was before watching this. appreciate you making these videos!
That's where I'm coming from as well. I don't much care about the optimization of the class, but I feel like flavor failed a bit. Hunter's Mark imo should just be something that they can do without using a spell, similar to 4e's quarry and Pathfinder 2e's Hunt Prey; and that requiring concentration is just bad (if I ever GM for a Ranger I'm removing concentration on it and we can figure out a new level 13 ability). I feel like Ranger is losing its flavor of nature survivalist who's more than adept as a warrior in their own right (ala Aragon) and that they're just doubing down more and more on the warrior aspect without knowing how to do that to make them unique.
Yeah it's really strange they chose to rely on the spell rather than just bake it in as a class feature. They did it in prior editions and even had it that way in Tasha's. Is there some overarching design reason it just HAD to be a spell?
To be fair, spells are features. And class-unique spells are also flavourful features. As long as they're good, though.
New ranger is just not good with Hunter's Mark as it is. Three of the base class features are tied to having HM active, as are one of Beast Master, and two of Hunter. I've heard on this channel probably hundreds of times that good features shouldn't be tied to others since that's overly restrictive and I heartily agree. Now some subclasses are inextricably tied to HM while others are not. This is bad design.
Chris, I wish you hadn't held back in your critique of HM. Sure, there are 4 Ranger spells that used to require concentration that now do not, and some of them work with HM, but that's not nearly enough to avoid talking deeply about the elephant in the room. Maybe another video topic. ;)
House Rule people should consider, treat hunters mark like divine favor. The buff stays on the ranger, no concentration and when they hit a target the target gets 'marked'. If you are really worried about it being too powerful lower the damage to a 1d4 and lower the duration to 1 min at low level, 1 hour at higher level spells.
I have... Issues with the new Ranger and most of them can be boiled down to 'why is Hunter's Mark a spell? And why are ao many feature slots dedicated solely to making it better?' both of which could probably be alleviated by making HM an ability instead. I don't even really mind it being concentration that much. Except that so many other fun flavorful thematic spells of the ranger are also concentration. If there were more features in those slots, I'd probably have less of an issue with it. Otherwise its 'why would i concentrate on these other apells when the class has so much investment in this one?'
I personally believe that spells that are exclusive and thematic to just a halfcaster class should be better in some way than the more 'generic' spells due to how long it takes for them to be online.
12:40 so, why not just remove the concentration tag from it at this level?
13:29 okay, this might be kind of better considering it doesn't list that it goes away from attacking here.
14:22 Neat, Tasha Rogues can do that at level 5? Without a spell slot and it only costs them movement
15:41 ...you know, if the rest of the party could benefit from HM, this wouldn't be terrible.
17:34 respectfully disagree.
18:02 not a high bar to clear since half casters tend to feel less great than either half.
14:22 Rogues get steady aim at 3rd level. It does take a BA on top of all your movement and only gives adv to the next atk made before the end of their next turn, not to every single atk.
@@mappybc6097 fair enough. Point still stands though. You're tapping into the energy that encapsulates the Omniverse to do something a "street urchin" can do with a bit of patience. Granted that comparison holds less water with Rangers with the hole don't need a spell slots thing. Not as egregious as the 2014 monk though.
Why not remove the concentration tag at level 1 like Divine Favor? If it's because of the hour duration, there are like three class features in the 2024 PHB alone that allow people to remove concentration from a big spell by reducing the duration to 1 minute.
What I would do in my table is making hunter's mark concentration free on level 13 and make the damage 2d6 on level 20. It's not OP, doesn't change much in description terms, but opens the concentration option to other spells and eventually doubles the hunter's mark damage.
Already had this discussion with my table. Except level 6 con free. Paladin gets con free divine favor. vengeance paladin gets free advantage with no action economy.
I feel like this benefit could go either way, make hunter's mark con free. or leave it the way it is and hunter's mark either: 1.) does more damage or 2.) gets the advantage always on feature that is its capstone - that feature is crap for a capstone and it would actually make hunter's mark more worth while at lower levels/throughout its career.
I had the same thoughts. I think that would make this ranger nicer to play.
That being said, I think a total overhaul of the Ranger to make stuff like favored foe and favored terrain more of a focus (and work in more situations) would make the Ranger feel more unique and not like someone threw Fighter, Rogue, and Druid in a blender.
@@stevenmathews9355 that’s exactly how the Ranger feels unfortunately. And to a certain degree that’s true, Paladin feels like
Fighter and cleric put together so I feel that there’s a case there (look at me
Defending ranger lol).
I do believe though that paladins have purpose (their oath) and every other class
Does too. I think a Ranger or what defines a Ranger needs to change so they can more effectively build subclasses around it. So here’s my effort to give a Ranger a new definition.
Ranger - A wise explorer that believes in protecting a particular area, people or place.
This would make sense, horizon walker (protects gateways between realms) gloomstalker (protects maybe a darker place such as a mountain cave or in the underdark, or Maybe even urban areas)
Fey Wanderer (protects the fey wild) Beast Master (protects the animals in a particular place and one fights alongside them). Drakewarden (the same or similar to beast master).
Maybe that’s all a bad idea but my point
Is giving Ranger a purpose, it’s the one
Class that has much less purpose (especially compared to paladins, clerics, Druids, and warlocks and even artificers).
55:27 heard “conjure enema” instead of conjure animal, and now my physician ranger needs this spell
you should check out Shadow of the Demon Lord if you haven't already haha
The problem with the 2024 Ranger is it is too focused on Hunter's Mark. There are 40 Ranger concentration spells and most of them are better than Hunter's Mark, yet 4 class features are useless unless you are using Hunter's Mark.
The thing most people just can't comprehend is that bad class features do not make a class worse, they just don't make it better. And even if you never use hunter's mark, ranger is still solid class.
@@Klaital1 While I understand the focus of that argument, it rings hollow, because bad class features replace features that SHOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD. And bad class features that are trap selections is just bad design.
@@Klaital1 "bad class features do not make a class worse" wtf? is like saying bad cheap ingredients don't make a dish worse.
@@Klaital1 Not a great argument. Those bad class features take up the space of features that could have been better. Not to mention this is a team game. If other classes have much better features in comparison, the ranger is suffering because they aren't keeping up and performing as well as their party members.
Exactly this. The 2024 Ranger class design gets a failing grade. Sure it's great the overall class doesn't suck because the class remains so wonky, but that does not excuse the anemic class features.
My problem with the Ranger is that it lacks features. I could multiclass a Fighter and Druid taking the Fey Touched Feat, and basically make a Ranger with 1 less free cast of Hunter's Mark, and maybe losing out on the Climbing/Swimming speed at the lower tiers. I lose out on nothing else, and gain Wild Shape, Wild Companion, Second Wind, Primal Order, and proficiency in CON saving throws to help maintain concentration.
With the Paladin, the other half-caster, and therefore comparable, I cannot do this with a Cleric/Fighter multiclass. I could get some features but I lose out on Smites, Lay on Hands and Find Steed in the lower tiers.
The Ranger will play fine in combat and in game, but it is just something that was so unliked WotC changed it almost completely to make it playable in Tasha's, then gave it basically the same amount of "candy" they gave the Wizard, but it really feels like it got less. Ranger doesn't have to be the best class and I don't even think "fixes" require bumps in power, just bumps in uniqueness, flavor, and most of all fun.
Find steed and smites are spells so you have to also add in the unique ranger spells that druids don't have, *which are good enough that the bard fans are pissed off about losing access to them*. And lay on hands isn't better than the extra healing you get from being a cleric multiclass with the new updated healing spells, especially if you pick life cleric.
And even if find steed wasn't a spell, it's still functionally in the same tier as having a swimming/climbing speed. It increases your movement speed when you're not inside or underground
Multiclassing is overpowered, everybody knows this. You're nearly always better off multiclassing than straight classing. Paladins and full casters are the only exceptions to this rule, and for paladins it's only because of auras.
Idk I just have a problem with people saying the class isn't fun before anyone has played it. That's a very bold prediction, especially given how much flavor and uniqueness all the subclasses get
@@Tausami from what I know most Bard fans are salty they can't get Swift Quiver which was a niche Bard Archer build that didn't even come on until level 10 and was not really that good. Swift Quiver and some of the exclusive spells do indeed make the Ranger "better" but not enough to negate the claim that a Druid/Fighter does enough of the same things to make it "feel bad" to play.
Multiclassing's power level is less the issue and more the fact that even if it was weaker than a straight class, Ranger doesn't get enough uniqueness. Lay on Hands as good or bad as it is is something only the Paladin gets, Divine Smite is a spell now, but it isn't one available though a feat or in a subclass. In fact, even the upgraded Searing Smite is now missing from the Ranger spell list, but Hunter's Mark remains on Vengeance Pally's spell list.
Paladin's matter here because Ranger is the other half-caster. So it should have a feature as crucial and good as Aura of Protection. This could have been in making Land's Stride an Aura like effect or even in the cool feature Ranger does get, Tireless, extending that to the party. It is a feature that helps the Ranger get back in the game, but what party do you know is going to not just turn back to rest with 2 levels of exhaustion even if they have a Ranger that is good after a couple of hours.
It is mainly that lack of "Ranger's thing" that I can say the Ranger feels like it would be less fun at a table than other classes. Not unfun, but less so. If you white room every encounter and your party is all about combat, Ranger will probably eat well. But if you want to see the cool things you can do and show off why you are glad you picked Ranger over another class, I think you and the DM have to work for that, whereas every other class, even the weaker ones, won't.
@@Coxsterifyokay let's imagine playing a fighter/druid multiclass. You start off as a fighter lvl 1. Then let's go druid lvl 2 and just take a druid lvl as infrequently as necessary to keep halfcaster progression.
At lvl 2 you're really pretty awkward. Druids don't get bladetrips so you have to pick between casting spells as a lvl 1 spellcaster or making weapon attacks as a lvl 1 fighter. Playing a ranger would feel better because the features you get from your two lvls would synergize better.
At lvl 3 we're a druid again for the third lvl 1 spell slot. We get wild shape, which is nice and rangers never get. Doesn't feel much like being a ranger, we're starting to feel like a druid played by Colby from D4. At this lvl rangers are getting subclass features and becoming gloomstalkers or fey wanderers. Rangers get great subclasses and we're missing out on that.
At lvl 4 we're fighter lvl 2. We get action surge, which is nice. Rangers just get a feat. Not a huge change either way.
At lvl 5 we're druid lvl 3, so we get a druid subclass. That's awesome but it doesn't make us feel like a ranger. I'd go with land druid for the flavor, I think. Rangers get extra attack. We still only have one shitty attack.
At lvl 6 we get a fighter subclass. Hell yeah. Eldritch knight would probably be the right move here. Now we finally get bladetrips and our one weapon attack is looking a bit better.
Lvl 7-8 we get the druid and fighter lvl 4 feats. We're up on feats relative to the ranger. But that doesn't make us feel like a ranger. We still only have one attack per turn.
Lvl 9 we are druid lvl 5 and get 3rd lvl spells.
Lvl 10 we are fighter lvl 5 and FINALLY get extra attack. At this point I'd say the build starts to come online, but we're nearing the end of most campaigns.
I definitely think being a ranger would feel better than this at every single level
@@Tausami if you mc that way sure but if you go Fighter 1 / Druid 1 / Fighter 6 / Druid X. You lose out on some spells at level 5 and 6 but get your second feat 1 level before Ranger and still get 3rd level spells before them and make it all the way to 7th level spells. That doesn't even account for EK. With it I would probably take 1 more fighter level to get the cantrip then attack option and set myself up to grab 2 epic boons later. But that argument is more the Multiclassing is good rather than the Ranger is disappointing
@@TausamiYour analysis is spot on here. Something that people focus on though is the numbers. If the numbers are better for attack rolls/saving throws/spell DCs/skills/etc., then wouldn’t it theoretically be superior? And if it’s a better option, shouldn’t you be doing the better option so you are more useful to your party? Because D&D is a team game, you’re not having fun if you’re not working with your team. And if you’re being subpar in your build, that sucks the fun out of the game.
Then again, that’s only one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is this: you come up with an idea of what you want to play, and THEN you optimize as best as you can. You want to play straight level 20 Ranger? Okay, how can you make your numbers the best they can be?
Furthermore, I think because Ranger was just not that popular, that people just don’t know how to play a Ranger character. Fighters? Wizards? Heck, even Monks? All of those are known quantities. Not Ranger. We have Drizzt Do’Urden, but that’s about it lol. 😂 So it’s really hard to grok if this is an improvement or not to the class. We’ll have to actually play it to see if it’s any good! And if people won’t play it because they’re butthort about Hunter’s Mark, then that’s a genuine shame.
I agree with everything EXCEPT saying Drizzt is a Beastmaster Ranger. Guenhwyvar is a magical panther from a Figurine of Wonderous Power and in the various books there have been others who took the onyx figurine and used Guenhwyvar, even against Drizzt, himself. I would surmise he's a Hunter ranger, through and through.
"Um, actually," rant over...
The Beastmaster subclass would be GREAT if it worked even half as good as what Drizzie-boy experienced.
Drizzt is Champion Fighter multiclass with Ranger.
@@dudubassmonster Don't forget a level or 2 of Barbarian. During the years of surviving in the Underdark on his own he was a Barb and even had a "rage" that would overtake him.
Though you could make the argument that he Retrained those levels during his training with Montolio and turned them into his first Ranger levels.
I think nowadays Drizzt also has quite substantial of levels as Open Hand Monk too.
@@charlesmaa3411 Honestly, after the Thousand Orcs series, I only read like one or two others. I'm definitely behind on any adventures he's had since 2015-ish.
I know that the ranger isn't bad. As you explain, the sum of all of its parts with spells and weapons is very powerful. But nothing about the class design makes me excited to play a ranger.
It's not "bad" and it feels a little bit better than 2014 overall. But...
In terms of utility it's worse (after 8lv), in terms of damage it deals like 1/3 possible damage (after 9lv) and it is annoying to see HM as "class feature", that almost nobody were using it anymore.
I'm going to feel like an absolute Lore pedant and kind of a jerk for pointing this out: Drizzt's Panther isn't an animal companion, She's summoned by a Figurine of wondrous power. So Drizzt isn't a Beastmaster Ranger. In fact, he's mostly an open hand monk these days based on the fact that he just recently used the Quivering Palm to defeat a foe.
Not to mention that Monks get Scimitars on their weapons list, and 99%% of the time, Drizzt is described as swinging his scimitars a crap-load of times (Flurry of Blows). He's pretty much just a straight up Monk now.
Literally this. He didn't even start out as a ranger and everybody sees him as the most iconic of rangers.
I also hate to be a lore nerd, but in the Forgotten Realms source book, Drizzt has a stat block that was approved by Salvatore. In it, he had Ranger levels but more fighter levels. Granted, this was V 3.5, but to my knowledge, it was the last time his character sheet has been published.
I mean a Monk and Ranger multiclass is strange, to me at least, but they both use Dex and Wis as their main stats, so a multiclass would work.
@@williambowen8054 He actually had a character sheet for 4E as well. He was a 21st level Ranger in that.
The main question is:
Am i excited to play this 2024 Ranger? Not really.
Every other class, except for the Wizard, has some new aspect that I'm excited to try out. Ranger feels pretty much the same as Tasha's. Sure, theres some improvements. But there's nothing really NEW that gets me excited here. I was hoping for some new mechanic- like the Rogue's Cunning Strikes.
Two things:
- I would not expect to WIS be similar to proficiency. Not on ranger.
- ranger can hardly be treated as a caster while his concentration is locked on HM forever
I did a double take when I heard him say either PB or Wis mod could be higher depending on the build - at level 14. I wish.
@@egowWhoTookMyNick you don’t have to always use concentration on hm. It’s still just an option you can choose to ignore. No one forces you.
Ranger would never compare to casters though because they’re half-casters. Spells are a supplement for them, they’re not supposed to rival casters in that regard.
@@blackfang0815 depending on both lvl and build though) And shillelagh nick dualwielder nowadays does seem like an option.
Something to remember of the fey wanderer's deadly strikes is that it differs from other, "once per turn," effects. It scales with the number of targets you hit. In a context where you want to spread out your damage, it can make up for not having HM on all the targets. It also means that in those situations, you can concentrate on something else. It seems like it might combine well with cleave, since the second hit must be on a second target.
What’s really frustrating is how, after 10+ years of complaints, homebrews, Unearthed Arcana, and obvious concentration bloat and lack of identity, they still haven’t nailed the class. It’s not terrible-it’s just frustratingly lost in its own concept.
There should be at least five new exclusive exploration and on-hit effect spells for the ranger. That way, we wouldn’t even need Favored Foe.
And the capstone is a joke.
Uh...that MAKES it terrible.
That's because everyone has a different idea of what a ranger is. Cope. If you want to see this in action watch Bob the World Builders video and you will see literally every D&D spinoff has different ideas of what a ranger is.
@@phillconklin382 I watched Bob's video, and literally everything he talked about was solved by Paizo for the Ranger in PF2e, but D&D UA-camrs keep refusing to acknowledge the system except to whine about things like spending 1 of your actions to draw items.
Literally every single thing he mentioned is possible on a PF2e Ranger. All of it. The core rules provide an immense foundation, the Ranger's base framework is pretty minimal other than stuff you'd universally expect, and class feats build out the rest.
@@AnaseSkyrider "The board game Call of Cthulhu didn't get Yelig'nar to have a proper unique identity! This other board game called Eldritch Horror got him right! Why can't Call of Cthulhu players admit that?! They only want to complain about Eldritch Horror's game features!" - you
@@phillconklin382You nailed it!
This time they actually decided that being a weapon using HUNTER (with the mark) with a few supplementary spells was at the core of the Ranger Class. I'd say it has more definition to its identity than it did before.
But so many people are complaining because their definition of Ranger includes concentrating on Spike Growth, lol
Everything up to level 15 the fey wanderer (my fave class/subclass) does can be be done by pact of the blade archfey warlock at level 3 and on top of that the warlock gets full levelled spellcasting, 2 extra attacks, their spellcasting mod as their attack and damage mod, plus the million other things warlock can do (apologies for being so salty)
I never thought it was bad I just don’t like it, literally half of the ranger spells are concentration spells but if you’re not using hunters mark you’re not using half you base class features edit: my argument isn’t that hunters mark is bad or not thematic I just would’ve liked to see rangers get more magic arrow options as class feature instead of hunters mark
The community is stuck in this weird loop, where the conversation goes nowhere because they’re having 2 different conversations …
**The new Rangers just not very interesting ..
*You’re wrong it’s DPR is solid!!
**But making a lvl 1 concentration spell so integral, just isnt compelling..
* Huh? it holds up to other classes damage wise.
**Its still suffers from ‘feel bad’ features, the design is uninspired.
*You can do good damage.
I'm with you here. Optimisers who are only looking for damage always played the same boring way every combat before, and they'll do it again now. Doing damage is the fun part to them so they'll have fun. People who want to mix it up and enjoy the variety that spellcasting brings are going to feel like they're playing a VERY dull class/subclass. As soon as they concentrate on anything besides HM, they lose almost every class feature unique to rangers, which makes them feel more generic and boring. You'd be better off as a fighter druid, all the same spells and fighting stuff with a bunch of extra class features.
I feel like the designers built the whole class around Hunter's Mark not requiring concentration. Then, when playtests showed how OP that was, they walked it back but left everything else in place and the whole thing ended up half arsed.
I'm in the "Hunter's Mark isn't thenatic" camp, because, while the ribbon certainly matches the rangers theme, the main effect of the spell is just a damage boost. If you called it "duellist's mark", "fury's mark" or "master's focus" you could give it to fighters, barbarians or monks. It's like the genie, fey wanderer or rune knight bonus damage. There's just nothing "rangery" about dealing an extra d6 damage on every attack against one guy at a time. Compare HM to core features like Sneak Attack, Rage and Martial Arts; they all support the fantasy (hide or get an unfair advantage for big damage, shrug off damage, mix weapon attacks with kicks and headbutts)
You do omit some points:
You always say how good mobility is, but didn't mention Ranger used to flat-out ignore difficult terrain starting at level 8
Proficiency bonus and Wisdom mod are a toss up at low levels, but when these features kick in Proficiency is almost definitely better
Nature's Veil has been pushed back not 1, not 2, but FOUR levels
In addition to Nature's Veil, Ranger could also Hide as a bonus action without limit
Most under-rated comment. Great points man.
those removed features are a blow for sure - I had some good encounters with my old ranger where I kited enemies around difficult terrain (Plant Growth most often) while party members pelted them with spells.
It'd be good to have, at least, immunity to Difficult Terrain that the Ranger's own spells create
I feel like this is also omitting things… like natures veil is one of the strongest class features among all classes, so of course it got pushed back. And it lacking anything it had before is made up in… well look at it… concentrationless greater invis that will last till the END of your next turn. Using that ONCE would’ve been a great feature in 2014 (with a SR cooldown). I feel like everyone is focusing on what pushes their narrative. Which means this class comes out of the wash being meh.
Nature's Veil being pushed from 10th to 14th level AND replacing Vanish (Hide as a Bonus Action and can't be tracked by nonmagical means) is detrimental. Land's Stride (ignore difficult terrain and advantage against Entangle and similar magical effects) wasn't amazing, but loosing this and Nature's Veil without getting replaced by new 8th- or 10th-level feature just underlines that there is little incentive to stay in Ranger beyond 5th level.
@chrisgee8441 Firbolgs get Hidden Step, which is only slightly worse than how Nature's Veil was in Tasha's. I've never heard anyone complain that it's too strong at 1st level, so I see absolutely no reason not to leave Nature's Veil as it was at 10th level instead of buffing it slightly but moving it to 14th where it replaces and arguably better feature (Hide an unlimited number of times). Ironically, a Firbolg or a Tasha's Ranger can turn invisible 5 times per LR at 14th level, while the 2024 Ranger can only do it 2-3 times if they're prioritising Dex, Con, and feats that help them excel and survice in melee combat, leaving them with a +2 or +3 Wis modifier (as opposed to a +5 Proficiency Bonus).
@@SortKaffe wait… does hidden step not say “until you attack” now? If that’s there I can’t take you seriously for comparing the two.
Another stealthy buff to Hunter's Mark: it used to apply to weapon attacks only, but now applies to *any attack*. Presumably this is to accommodate Druidic Warrior builds (with, say, Produce Flame or Thorn Whip), but also works well for multiclasses that reliably make multiple spell attacks (such as a Stars Druid or a Warlock with Eldritch Blast). The Warlock use case is actually quite nice, since you get multiple free castings of Hunter's Mark and improved armor training with even a one-level dip, freeing up your Pact Magic slots for even more reliable noncombat utility.
The problem with tying the Ranger to Hunter's Mark is that it monopolizes your concentration and bonus action. You have to stop using HM when you want to use any other concentration spell and lose all features that require Hunter's Mark to be active. Foe Slayer comes way too late. Spellcasting is good, but you're limited if your class features require a specific spell that you need to concentrate on.
My problem with the Ranger is the marketing and the dependence on a single spell. This is basically a slightly improved Tasha's Ranger, only they were claiming this is all Brand New! The dependence on a single spell that is both concentration and BA heavy in an already BA heavy class is super restricting. At least for me, Ranger is designed around being free, granted that main freedom is about exploration/navigation, but still, it shouldn't feel restricting. With all of the class updates to the other classes, they felt like there was effort to make the classes more cohesive and less restricting, yet with Ranger they doubled down on the most restricting level 1 spell. Gave ability features that did make the spell better, but never made it less restricting.
I mean, to play Devil's Advocate, it was clear that Jeremy Crawford always meant "new... compared to the previous version of the PHB that this 2024 book updates".
Was that a tad "marketing spin-y"?
Sure.
But it was clear what he meant so the complaint doesn't really work aside a general wish for"brand new " stuff. :)
One of the many reasons I'm more excited for DC20 than 5.24! The fact they kept saying "brand new" to mean "we put Tasha's stuff in now teehee" will always leave a bad taste in my mouth.
@@zTom_ From all the class reveal videos, almost all classes had verbal distinctions between new to PHB and brand new. Many of the Tasha's features were said to be added for Tasha's. The Rangers had the least mentions of Tasha's for the amount of content from Tasha's.
This is completely different than the Tasha's Ranger. And much much better. It's not BA heavy. Hunter's Mark is generally only going to eat 1 BA per fight.
@@dwil0311 This is Tasha's. They gave you extra expertise at 9 and 5 extra movement, changed Favored Foe to Hunter's Mark, and got ride of the Primal Awareness spells. Beastmaster, Drakewarden, and Horizon Walker use BA every turn if you choose plus Nature's Veil, albeit at later levels. HM taking only 1 BA per fight? I wish I had that experience.
I’m pretty sure that the wording on animal companion’s level 7 bonus actions is intended as they allow the beast to take any action if you use a bonus action but only allow the beast to attack if you give up one of your attacks.
I feel like level 13 should have removed concentration from Hunter's Mark, if not earlier. I don't feel like that would break the ranger. Right now, the ranger in my group never looks at their other spells because they feel like Hunter's Mark is a must, and that concentration slot is always used up. Everything else feels fine, they're strong but not overly so.
So, Chris. We get it, you are trying to find good sides of this new ranger.
But honestly? It's FAR worse than 2014 in a lot of cases:
- HM is just pure liability and unnecessary feature/spell
- no class identity (that's just 5lv fighter and 15lv of druid with hex/warlock... Or just pure warlock)
- Favored foe was, and probably still is strictly better in most cases
- at the end of the video you picked spells that work specifically with HM... Thats not how classes should work!
- Tasha and 2024 beastmaster wants to use basic attacks instead of wasting them on HM. At least before 11lv. After 11lv - that depends. Mostly still no, but at least it is not as bad.
- there are better spells that requires concentration, like spike growth. I might be wrong, but i think you did at last one video about how broken this spell is.
- would say that even ensnaring strike is just better than HM... Is ensnaring strike even there?
- no 8lv Land's Stride feature, that with plant growth was one of the strongest Ranger features
- conjure animals was the strongest Ranger feature. Now it is like at least 20times worse cause it can't tank, it deals ~16 insted of ~50-70 damage and cannot be used as fast escape, nor it can't be used as mounted fighting.
And after all - 2014 beastmaster was honestly kinda good. The only "bad" features was that his beast could not attack during bonus action.
22:40 - I haven't reached subclasses yet (but just focussing on main class features for now) - you have definitely highlighted well that this ranger is really not that bad.
BUT, I think what bothers me, is WotC had a chance here to make the rangers feel a little more unique, and these features just don't really do that for me. I feel like every other class got features that stand out and define them.
24:46 - so the problem is that their standout feature - Hunter's mark - is just not that interesting. The capstone is then just a kick in the teeth.
If they had done what they did with other classes, and made it a resource like Second Wind, or Wildshape, that would have given the opportunity to do something intersting with it, that's different to its base use.
I'm currently playing a ranger now (still level 1, so we'll see if they survive), and it's in a more narrative campaign - and I've actually elected to use some of the older Favoured Enemy and Primeval Awareness features. Because, while they may be mechanically useless, there are quite narratively interesting.
I think Rangers would have been served well, by making those quirky features useful, rather than just flattening the whole class to a wisdom based half caster with expertise.
I'm fine with rangers but I have 3 concerns.
1) capstone
2) lacking in non concentration lvl 4 spells
3) subclasses have to bring it at 11 as that's where the t3 spike is. And hunters missed.
Otherwise it's fine.
4) though not a ranger problem, bows are much weaker than TWF
Beast Master has an amazing level 11 feature. Fey Wanderer is pretty decent too. The others are indeed complete misses though. Edit: Fey wanderer is actually a miss too
Edit to 3. Just want to mention this works per turn which means reaction attacks work with hunter lvl 11. Optimize for sentinel.
And it says when you deal damage to a creature affected by HM not when you deal HM damage. So all damage works on this.
@@plannedtuna8293a ridiculous claim
Ranged attacks should be weaker than melee attacks. In fact, I don’t think they went far enough to nerf ranged attacks. If you don’t risk your own blood in battle, you don’t get to share in the glory.
It's really only hand crossbow which is worse (and that's my favorite change in the whole game as I hate hand crossbow with a passion). You can get up to +6 damage to all your longbow shots with great weapon master, which is better than the old sharpshooter damage buff since it doesn't come with -5 to hit.
The problem with the 2024 Ranger isn't its power or DPR, its the entire design. It lacks flavor, and many of its features require you to use Hunter’s Mark. So it's the class you'd only want to play if you plan on concentrating on Hunter’s Mark almost entirely.
I made a homebrew Ranger with flavorful and mechanically useful bonuses depending on your preferred environment, a feature that makes them better at traps, a feature that helps them track and deal additional damage to a creature you are pursuing, the ability to have a beast companion if you want, and other cool features that make it great late game. If anyone wants to see it, let me know, its in a pretty PDF with art, and it's free
Dpr is a problem. Now they deal like half or 1/3 of their damage from 2014.
@Kivuhl That's another good point. Their power ceiling has lowered, even if their power floor has raised. DPR aside, I just don't like the 2024 Ranger's design
@@BenHameen33 Me too. I guess Ranger would be fine even as a reprinted class from tasha.
Thing is - making HM (without changed mechanics) as a basic Ranger ability was probably the worst thing they could do.
One of the most effective uses for Escape the Horde might be to protect your allies against Opportunity Attacks, and/or other reaction effects... Like if you purposefully bait Opportunity Attacks at Disadvantage, the rest of your party should be able to move without needing to worry as much about getting attacked for moving out of range.
is it strong to get advantage on all attacks on hunter's mark when so many rangers will already have vex as one of their weapon masteries? like at the very least that feels bad right?
I think the problem with the new Ranger is that it didn't get the Monk treatment when popular perception was that it desperately needed a massive upgrade from 2014. Considering how many new toys all the other martials got and especially Monk the Ranger failed to have the same impact. That is why I think so many people are writing it off.
Great Weapon Master now works with a longbow and is a good way of getting extra damage for "free" (yes its a feat) on ranged attacks. At higher levels it will be more damage than the average Hunter's Mark roll.
Only sad part is you can only bump your str with it, so if you're focused at range it's a bit of a dead level, but yeah it's definitely an interesting combination available
@@collinw9792 just remembered that you also need a 13 strength which most ranged Rangers won't have 😞
You may sacrifice some Wisdom for getting 13 str, but it may be the best ranged build. The other ranged option is dual hand crossbows, but it overloads the BA traffic.
@@laelnascimento7487 The problem now with sacrificing some wisdom is a few of the class and subclass features use wisdom modifier to determine uses.
@@joshuasmith9061 yeah, its a trade, you must consider what is more important to you
Chris, you're too focused on "spells are mechanically powerful". There is more to a class being designed well than just being powerful. You could take away fighters' weapon masteries and stuff and just give them the ability to cast Wish proficiency bonus times per short rest at level 1 and they'd be _powerful,_ they'd be the most powerful class in the game, but it would be bad design. It wouldn't deliver on the class fantasy and it would feel bad mechanically to the other members of the party AND the fighter, who would probably be bored with almost all content in the game.
Rangers didn't have spells before 5e. Spells are not delivering on the Ranger fantasy.
Rangers should get a fix to Hunter's Mark by level 3 to work with and not disrupt subclass features. I got a house rule I'm ready to go
Rangers at level 3 get "Second Nature" which is
1) Verbal component is optional for Hunter's Mark. Solves a lot of problems relying on Hunter's Mark and gives a bit reason to stick with class and Paladins don't need it .
2) Hunter's Mark can be cast or target transferred alongside any Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction limited to once per turn.
I'm sure at some later point I could see Hunter's Mark keep concentration when paired up other Ranger list spells (including Hunter's Mark on a second target). I'm not sure when that should kick in for game balance.
I definitely wouldn't say the new ranger is bad, it's strongly improved from 2014, which also wasn't horrible
the thing is, a few of its core features are underwhelming (mainly the hunter's mark stuff, which could have been way better features)
Having old Conjure Animals and Pass Without Trace was strictly better than the entirety of new ranger.
You can't mathematically beat suprise round for the whole party, and you definitely can't beat a bunch of summoned cows in DPR.
@@GwenWynns well, first of all, those spells aren’t exclusive to the ranger, nor are they something every ranger necessarily has, they’re choices. Also, they’re few and specific aspects that were abusable, which is why they were so strong
@@GwenWynns Was going to post the same thing - 2014 Conjure Animals beats the DPS of the 2024 Ranger hands down (and has other benefits), while Pass Without Trace 2014 surprise was a party wide benefit of massive proportions.
A slightly better Hunter's Mark at level 17 isn't making the 2024 Ranger stronger than the 2014 Ranger.
I was giving Treantmonk the benefit of the doubt and looking at the 2024 Ranger spell list. Hunter's Mark's upgrade is level 13, Relentless Hunter. At the same level, you get access to new goodies: 4th level spells. Except Freedom of Movement, *all of them* are Concentration.
Treantmonk is pretty chill about this, and I can appreciate him being level-headed about the issue - but there's no going around it here: it's just plain bad design. Sure, the Ranger has spells but it conflicts with its main tool to augment damage (a rider rewarding multiple attacks). Would you think Arcane trickster was good if Concentration spells conflicted with Sneak Attack? would the Paladin Improved Divine Smite feel good if it was gated behind Concentration?
I agree that Ranger spells are an asset, but the synergy here was worsened, not improved.
Hunter's Mark would need to be much improved to warrant being this awesome choice at higher level that merits a doubling down on that spell for a total of 3 levels worth of class features spread through the Ranger's entire career (with the second arriving at a level some campaigns have already come to a close). The capstone, for example, is ridiculous... until you remember that during the playtest, they toyed with allowing Hunter's mark to upcast for more damage. Hunter's mark upcasted to level 3 would have done 3d6. A level 20 ranger upcasting Hunter's Mark at 5th level could have done _5d10 extra damage once per round_ ... if that had been the type of scaling used, the capstone would have made much more sense and felt much more rewarding.
But it's not. Neither is what came previously.
If Hunter's Mark was to remain more granular but become more of a staple for the Ranger, they should have taken after it's original iteration in 4th edition more. It staying a spell is just groan worthy, especially when it has more to do with the Rogue's sneak attack than the Paladin's smite. I can deal with the bonus action conflict, but I have to admit that the implementation of Tasha's Favored Foe made it feel like things clicked together much better in this respect.
At the sum, it's a hodgepodge of too many things that don't mesh that well together. They could have smoothed it out, and they had the playtest to figure it out -- but they mostly squandered those opportunities.
------
Finally, I think the Hunter is a shadow of its former self. Losing Volley/Whirlwind Attack hurts a whole lot and the return doesn't seem much worth it. It smarts a bit because I liked the 3rd edition name allusion, but also because it was it unique way of catching up and really embracing the 'horde breaker' theme. If the wanted to streamline the whole to ape that, they could have chosen to increase with levels the number of adjacent targets that could be hit... but nooo. Do not pass GO, do not get cake.
It’s not that it’s a weak class, it’s that the design pushes you toward using Hunter’s Mark all the time. And sure, it’s an iconic spell, and it’s not really a bad spell, but it’s not a great spell either. It’s a mediocre spell. And yes we can still choose not to cast it, but that FEELS bad because then we’re missing out on a significant portion of our class features. So we then have to choose between using other more interesting spells, or using Hunter’s Mark and our features that go with it. And because concentration lasts so long for it, it’s not likely that we’re ever going to run out of our free uses of it.
This version of Ranger basically feels like it’s Hunter’s Mark the class. It might be an okay class numbers wise, but it’s just not interesting.
Yeah. I would probably enjoy Hunter's Mark more if it had a bit more flavor to it. Even something as simple as "By combining their wilderness training and their magical connection with nature, Rangers are able to exert unparalleled focus on a single quarry."
The points you didn't address:
1) The took away all the Ranger's unique ranging abilities. Spellcasting and Expertise are generic substitutions. The Ranger should have something to allow it to excel in a unique capacity that other classes don't get in this regard. You overvalue spellcasting and ignore the thematic element of self-reliance that the Ranger should embody. At the very least they could have given Survival expertise for free alongside the 1 of your choice to make up for scrapping all other ranging features from the class. Then at least it would feel like the class actually had the tools built in to excel at survival, rather than being opt-in.
2) Hunter's Mark is poorly designed. It tries to do two things at once: be a damage rider and a tracking feature, but does neither thing well. The Ranger wants this spell for tracking (back to my first point, and my aggravation that they can't just let any ability exist that's not dependent on spellcasting), but you have to already be in sight of the target to use it. This makes no sense. Then as a damage rider it's fine, but being Concentration means it is an all-battle commitment or you lose your main damage buff to do something else (or if you just get hit, which severely hurts its reliability).
When Paladins are getting Divine Favor, it seems like the only reason for this limitation is the one-hour duration, but the only reason for the one-hour duration is tracking. Thus the two goals of this spell are in conflict. You can't balance one role without making the other role overpowered or useless. This also means they can't give HM any feature to improve QoL until way later than most campaigns even play to, thus the spell doesn't meaningfully scale with the class. Put all that conflict together and you have an immensely unsatisfying spell/feature.
Compare Smites, which have lots of different options with different rider effects, to HM which always does the same thing. HM just isn't exciting or tactically interesting, so making it hard to use on top of that just feels bad.
3) They cross-contaminate build priorities. The Ranger uses Wisdom for raw damage abilities like Dreadful Strikes and Beast Master's pet, for damage spells like Hail of Thorns, as well as for the usual utility/control saving throws. This means the Ranger has a very hard time focusing on any one role for a build. Maxing Dex first makes sense for a damage focused build, but then you get fewer uses of combat abilities from some subclasses. Paladins are much more consistent in splitting support and damage into different stats, and when then want a subclass like Devotion to focus on Charisma they give it a channel divinity to help offset that focus. Ranger's often end up chasing two stats for the same role, and I hate that design.
Similarly, many of your BA options like HM, Command your pet, Hail of Thorns, etc, are all just doing damage in different ways. This isn't a meaningful choice like Paladin's Smite vs Lay on Hands vs Buff spells. Instead you are just picking different ways to do the same thing - not anything interesting.
So put all that together and the Ranger is just discordant. It lacks focus, identity, and a fun gameplay loop. The power might be there, but the actual gameplay feel is severely lacking.
Glad to see the list of supporters growing. Cheers!
I think that Gloomstalker + Sharpshooter was just so good that while the class is basically exactly the same, probably about half of Ranger PCs got nerfed. Should it ever have been allowed to be that railroady to one build? Absolutely not.
You just said that a Ranger's 17th level feature is about equivalent to a 3rd level spell. That's the class level where wizards are getting Wish.
A 3rd level spell practically at will is better than what wizards get at level 20.
@@KevUnchained Its not the equivalent of casting a 3rd level spell every turn, its the equivalent of casting a third level spell that has a duration. Being at will doesn't matter much in that situation.
Also, just as a point of comparison, at level 17, a Ranger gets several free castings of Hunter's Mark, which at that level deals an extra 1d6 damage per attack, with the Ranger having Advantage on the attack and cannot have their concentration broken by damage.
A Great Old One Warlock with Pact of the Blade can combine Hex and Clairvoyant Combatant to deal 1d6 extra damage per attack, with advantage on all of their attacks against the target, while the target had disadvantage on all of their attack rolls against the Warlock and has disadvantage on ability checks and saving throws for one ability score chosen by the Warlock.
Between the two, the Ranger has the benefit that it only takes one Bonus Action to apply Hunter's Mark, they get several free castings, and their concentration can't be broken by damage, while the Warlock needs 2 bonus action to apply both Hex and Clairvoyant Combatant, doesn't get any free castings of Hex, and their concentration on Hex can be broken by damage. The Warlock has the benefit where their concentration is harder to break due to their target having disadvantage on attacks against them, the target having disadvantage on ability checks and saving throws of the chosen ability score, the benefits of Clairvoyant Combatant remaining even if their concentration on Hex gets broken, and the fact that they can get all of these benefits at level 10 instead of 17. And if you don't include the saving throw debuff the Great Old One Warlock adds to Hex at level 10, they can still get all of the other benefits at level 6.
@@KevUnchained bro, clerics get access to WISH as their capstone. Get outta here.
@@CivilWarManyou just compared a Ranger without suubclass to a specific subclass of warlock, though
@treantmonk 54:11 the fact that you specifically had a list of spells, taken from the whole, rangers list, specifically to work around THE core feature of the class, shows the problem perfectly. You intentionally avoided all of the amazing concentration spells rangers have access to, (summoning spells, spike growth, entangle, guardian of nature, etc.) Because there are so many sources in both class and subclass, that make even wanting to concentrate on anything else feel terrible. A player should never feel that they have to tailor their entire spell list to work around a spell that is being pushed on them by the class as a whole. Anytime you concentrate on something else therell be that little voice in the back of your mind saying "should i have just used HM? Theres so many bonuses to it that this feels like a mistake." The current setup passively punishes people for not falling into the set archetype, which limits player freedom.
The same could be said about warlocks with EB and hex (more so in 2014). Yet I have never played a warlock with either spells known and it played perfectly fine. People are just trying to cope despite the new ranger being a perfectly viable and varied class. Maybe focus less on power gaming and trying to 'beat' your DM and just try to enjoy the game?
@gousmannetje the EB and Hex combo was good at low levels, then once 4th or 5th came, not so much. Concentration or slots in general were better used on stronger spells. The class wasn't really tied to Hex.
@@gousmannetjeas someone who has taken 2 different warlocks from level 1-20, I can honestly say that after level 5 hex was almost never used. Hypnotic pattern or hunger of hadar became the primary ones. But the thing is I had options, and I could choose to be a blaster that just did hex and EB or be a battlefield controller without having to lose my subclass. It really didn’t feel limiting at all and frankly EB would be taken by every class if they had access to it anyways. Most warlocks after level 5 don’t have much reason to use hex, since it just isn’t that good at high levels or even mid level like 5-9.
With new ranger however, if you choose to not use hunters mark then I hope you aren’t playing a hunter or you basically become a really crappy fighter. God forbid you fight someone who can use an AOE attack and you lose concentration, now your dual-wielding nick build is hamstrung, ironically the only decent damage build since archer rangers are now trash damage wise with gloom stalker losing their nice bonus attack and sharpshooter damage buff removed. And since the two weapon fighting is basically the only decent damage build the ranger will be in melee to take hits and potentially lose concentration more. BM will also be miserable since commanding the beast is a BA, just like reapplying hunters mark. The only long term game I played a ranger in I never even took HM. I used zephyr strike more often and then spike growth. But if I did that now I have to lose half my class features. And frankly the level 20 capstone is just plain insulting. Nothing can justify that abomination. Not to mention the level 13 featuring being something useless since not many are using HM at that level and most will home brew it to be concentration free anyways. So you have a hand waved level 13 feature and a capstone that is just insulting, and if you do want to use your other features you have to cast a possibly suboptimal spell. Yeah no thanks, I appreciate the improvements to most classes but in this Tasha’s gloom stalker would eat the lunch of every ranger here and it’s not even close.
take a handful of concentration spells, as you get to higher levels, you'll have lots of free HM. Nothing wrong with dropping concentration on it for another concentration spell. My onednd 13th lvl ranger has spike growth and pass without trace (latter from wood elf) I mostly concentrate on HM but occasionally cast those spells as well. Therefore, I disagree with the first half of your comment. As game design, I can be persuaded either way whether rangers are being forced to use HM or not. In 5e, I'd have favored foe and wouldn't feel bad if I never used it. Same here, some parts of the subclasses buff HM but not enough to force you to concentrate on it all the time.
You have to approach hunter's mark differently in this situation. Don't treat it as your cool concentration spell to do cool things with, use it as the go to spell for whenever you AREN'T using your cool concentration spells. Having so many free usages of it means it's really easy to just drop hunter's mark when you want to use some other flashier concentration spell, then swap back to HM whenever you are done with that. Hunter's Mark is a one hour duration spell, meaning just one activation can last between multiple fights. Having multiple free activations of an hour long spell means it has a lot of uptime per day you can utilize, so burning a few free usages just to alternate between your flashier concentration spells and HM isn't nearly as much of an issue.
I would’ve loved for it to get rid of the need to concentrate on hunters mark rather than just making it harder to lose concentration. Stacking hunters mark swift quiver and magic weapon would be dope.
Here's the simple reasons why I think Hunter's Mark isn't iconic:
The vast majority of the time it's just a bland bonus to your damage. That may be reasonably powerful, but it doesn't do anything interesting nor particularly characteristic of the ranger, neither mechanically nor narratively.
The name doesn't change that and feels like the silly moon sorcerer from dragonlance that had all sorts of features with a moon theme like waxing and waning, yet the mechanics had absolutely nothing to do with those things. At least Hunter's Mark has the tracking thing, but that hardly ever comes up. A name without a matching game mechanic is skin deep.
Reckless Attack is iconic: the mechanics create story and characterize the Barbarian's rage.
Warlock invocations are iconic, they represent strange boons that the Warlock gets out of their pact with a powerful entity, the very conceptual core of their class. Getting spell slots back on a short rest otoh is NOT iconic, because it has zero narrative underpinnings, it's just a quirky mechanic that people got weirdly attached to. You could just as easily say it's Sorcerers who should get their magic back after a power nap....
Wizards being able copy spells into their spell book is iconic, as it encapsulates their approach to magic perfectly.
Rangers getting to do more single-target damage at the press of a button, however, says nothing about who rangers are.
This. I've seen comparisons to Rage, which just doesn't feel genuine, and Paladin, which feels more fair (though this means Paladin SHOULD have free Smites equal to your Charisma modifier, which would ease the pain).
It feels like either the base mark needs more interaction, or you could use different *kinds* of mark (like a burning mark, ensnaring mark, or marks that let you push or pull). Like, could really use a flavor blast or toybox
My homebrew fix for this: Let rangers cast Hunter's Mark not just on creatures they can directly see, but to target the creature indirectly, even if they haven't yet encountered them, via their tracks or other such traces. Then the tracking aspect of Hunter's Mark comes into play, and they're rewarded for engaging in their hunter-tracker fantasy by entering combat with a pre-cast damage boost (and potentially some additional information about the creature gleaned from the traces) when they do catch up to the creature. This would make Hunter's Mark the iconic ranger ability WotC clearly thinks it is.
@@MrTwrule That's a nice bit of homebrew! I might have to borrow that...
I kinda wish at some point Rangers didn’t need to concentrate on Hunter’s Mark.
Agreed. The 13th level feature should have been granted at 5th level, with 13th being you don't need to concentrate at all. Rangers are currently the only class that doesn't get a 5th level feature outside of Extra Attack.
The problem I have with 2024 Ranger isn't that its too weak. It's the fact that its going to be so reliant on Hunter's Mark to deal competitive damage, that 1. other damaging options that require concentration will never be used, and 2. the concentration of HM will interfere with their longer duration utility spells (primarily Pass without Trace).
I'm really disappointed in the hunter subclass. They took a half measure on increasing the flexibility of the level 3 feature. You should be able to choose which one you want every attack action.
We already have an example of this to design philosophy with the swarm ranger.
Being able to pick after a rest doesn't really accomplish what you needed to. Because what if you're going to fight through a bunch of hoards to fight a big giant monster at the end. You're going to want one of the level 3 options for the first part of that day and the other level 3 option for the BBEG.
So you're still always going to want to pick the one that is best in the most situations meaning this changes very little.
What I really hate about it is how hunter's mark is now built-in but is still a spell and that it is somehow supposed to rival the other spells that require concentration
The levels that boosted Hunters Mark needed an additional feature not related to the spell in addition to the HM boost.
Other classes received multiple features at different levels, the ranger feels rushed and one dimensional.
All WC needed to do was say “here is your new level feature AND a slight boost to HM”
I feel like it’s not that it’s bad, it’s just that it’s not fun. I’ve never cast Hunter’s Mark and thought, “This is so fun!”
One of my players always plays a ranger and always uses Hunters Mark - he loves it.
Don't generalise your personal experience to other players etc. etc.
@@simonfernandes6809 I get what you mean, that is why I shared my personal experience though. I should’ve added to my first sentence, “for me”.
@@simonfernandes6809 i dont think they were trying to generalise. dont read things that arent there etc. etc.
I mean... Conjure Animals were annoying mechanically, but it WAS fun to play.
And it gave this class free 50-70 damage per turn after 9lv, a lot of utility, easy escape and lot of roleplay funny shenanigans.
Now this class deal like 1/3 of 2014 damage, has no utility, no escape and unnecessary HM as class feature.
Laura Bailey was so excited to cast Hunter's Mark that she forgot to cast it most of the time. That's how fun it is.
I normally agree on just about everything you cover, but this is a video that I actually disagree on. Something that you don't address in this video is all the things that are taken away from the Ranger (using Tasha's rules).
These are all the features that were removed without a replacement:
-Primal Awareness
-Land's Stride
-Vanish
These were all the features that received a nerf:
-Canny being moved to second level
-Tireless being tied to wis instead of prof
-Nature's Veil being tied to wis instead of prof, as well as moving to 14th level from 10th
No other classes got that many features removed without a replacement feature, or that many nerfs to features. The benefits that Rangers got were either small or given to all martial classes, essentially providing no boost to the class relative to the other classes, which is really how it should be compared.
That's before even looking at the subclasses. The subclasses either remained mostly the same or were nerfed, while most other classes got improved subclasses. I'm guessing that when you say it's not the weakest subclass you're thinking of the Rogue, but being just above the Rogue in power level is still not a great place to be.
But it got more spells, and ritual casting! ...except that just brings it up to the spellcasting level of Paladins. But then Paladins get 10 free spells from every subclass, while Rangers get 5 from only half of them. Which of these classes has tons of incredible features, and which of them got the official "What do you mean you want class features? Don't you have spells and skill proficiencies?"
Not bad, just antisynergyc. They REALLY want you to always use Hunter's Mark, but by doing so, you can't use any other concentration spell and basically all the new ranger kit revolves around hunters mark anyway.
(preface: I think the Ranger is good. Better than 2014. New Rituals are great, better spells, weapon mastery, etc. my post became long, so heres the summary: 4 features for HM is too much, the upgrades might as well have been ribbons)
HM feels very Ranger-y to me, and I think it makes sense thematically for it to have concentration. I just feel like the 3 extra features to buff it come way too late for what they're providing. 13 is by your admission not that useful, and 20 is recognized as poor by everyone. 17 is good, but you can get semi-reliable Advantage with Vex since level 1.
While rangers get unbreakable concentration for a spell they have too many free uses of, Monks are getting to Deflect Energy like a character straight out of an anime. While rangers increase their chances of landing hits with the same attacks they've always been making, Wizards are getting to feel like archmages by casting Meteor Swarm, and Fighters feel like super heroes with a 2nd Action Surge flurry of attacks (that they can swap out masteries with on each hit by now) on top of their 3rd Legendary Resistance.
After typing this out, I think I realized what makes it feel so lame to me; the numbers are there, but there's nothing to do, nothing new to choose. Paladins have Smite, but their spell list has new Smites with different effects as they level up, so it feels like giving Divine Smite options. Rage, Sneak Attack, Second Wind, Focus, all of these get new ways to use them as you level. Meanwhile, the level 20 Ranger is fighting in the same way with the same tactics as the level 5 Ranger. The only special action you get is giving Temp HP as a whole Action, and turning invisible for 1 turn, which is probably the Ranger's most fun ability, but it's only 5 times per Long Rest. All the rest are passive buffs, so your numbers are improving while your options aren't, besides spells. Which are great! But other classes get spells on top of more choices to make in their actions and tactics. I think it's fine to base your class on a core ability, but every other class and subclass has been designed in 2024 to give that core ability options instead of just upgrading its numbers, while the Ranger feels left behind.
Just don't think it needed 3 features to upgrade it with "eh" effects. Even ribbons that give something new to do would have been better. Maybe move the Advantage feature to 13, and give something new to 17 and 20. Each of them being just 1 line of text doesn't help them feel less like of an afterthought either.
I don't think the Ranger class is weak I just think it's poorly designed. I mean no matter which way you decide to play it, either by ignoring Hunter's Mark and losing out on a good chunk of class features or by diving head long into Hunter's Mark and forgoing other good possibly better concentration spells, it feels like you're playing to only half your potential.
Tasha’s Ranger was the right mix. Basing a whole class around a first level concentration spell is odd.
The whole ranger interaction with wotc is like a divorce lawyer but not being allowed a counter offer. We gave you the camper(but not the truck to use it or house which is independently useful) we gave you the dog (we didn't want) and we gave you part of the business but you have to sell your own to split the assets. You also can keep some of your assets the other side dosen't want. Be grateful.
Why is the new feral senses a significant improvement, when (unless i'm misinterpreting) the old feral senses allowed me to shoot from even 300ft away while inside a fog cloud with no disadvantage, and the new one forces me to be within 30ft from the target?
I am a little bit surprised, that you don't mention the sharpshooter feat change when talking about the damage output.
It's not really a factor because you can still take great weapon master which works with long bows. So you are still getting consistent extra damage without the chance of missing because of that penalty. Plus since magic weapon is not concentration you are also getting more damage and attack.
@@phillconklin382 except that you need 13 Str to quality for the GWM feat, which gives you another +1 to Str that you don't need. So you have to sacrifice Wisdom, which cripples several class and subclass features as well as spells.
That's because he wanted to be optimistic. He forgot a lot of changes that negatively impacted the Ranger.
Even after this video, still not convinced that this ranger is all that great. Ted (Nerd Immersion), myself, and others are on the same boat that if the Fey Wanderer can reduce Summon Fey to 1 minute and no concentration, then Hunter's Mark can get the same treatment.
22:01 Nature's Veil also came online at 10th in Tasha's, but now it's 14th. So, saying it's "improved" is a bit misleading. I think I'd rather get a "weaker" ability early than a "stronger" ability later, and probably well after a point where most campaigns have ended.
26:54 Unless WotC comes out and says you can sacrifice your Nick attack for your beast's attack, I don't know that many tables will accept that.
29:00 All of the companions now use your Wisdom modifier instead of PB for Armor Class and extra damage. A ranger typically doesn't have anything higher than a 16 because Str, Dex, and Con are more important. So, instead of having AC +6 and dealing +6 damage at 17th level, the companions are going to be stuck with AC +3 and +3 for the majority of the game. That feels bad. If the companion actually scaled with the ranger, that'd be a completely different story. The only actual proven "buff" here is the ability at 11th level. Changing the damage from magical to force just shows what the monsters in 2025 are going to be looking like (ie. magical damage doesn't really mean much anymore).
43:37 Not true. Iron Mind has always given you the option of getting Intelligence or Charisma saving throws if you already had Wisdom saving throws.
51:14 Defensive Tactics also had Steel Will, which gave you advantage on saving throws against the frightened condition. It'd have been nice to have kept that, and added Charmed as well, much like the Fey Wanderer.
Multiattack and Superior Hunter's Defense are both very different. Wish those options had been moved to lower levels if they were just going to remove them altogether. Rangers should have evasion.
Why would you prioritize Str and Con over Wis if you are a half caster? If you go Str over Dex for weapons then you want wis as you second stat increase so your spells doesnt suck
@@derekfrost7751 How many spells for ranger actually require a high wisdom though?
@@Reapor234 many.
@@codymarshall587 OK, and how many don't? Answer: a lot more than those that do. And arguably those are the better spells to focus on.
@@Reapor234source?
My problem is the level 13 feature does nothing to solve rangers real issue, which is hunters mark competing for your concentration. It should have instead allowed you to cast it without concentration for a shorter duration (1 minute) like so many other core class/subclass features do in 2024 with their signature spells. This is how I will be homebrewing it in my games.
Thank you so much for this video! Rangers are my favorite class along with Wizards and I'm super glad to see your positive outlook of the new class, can't wait to play with the new beastmaster!
I think it is less the mechanical power of the Ranger, but rather the same problem it has had for the last umpteen editions (perhaps sans 4e): the design doesn't quire hit the itch/fiction/feel that many gamers have of the class. That, and designing a lot of the base class features around Hunter's Mark while still keeping it concentration. The Ranger already had a problem with many of their key spells requiring concentration.
In my opinion Horde Breaker is now Hunter's best ability. It allows them to apply weapon masteries to multiple targets while still using its main attacks to focus down one enemy. Plus with their upgraded spells they're almost as effective at fighting two enemies as they are at focusing one.
I think the ranger is objectively better than it was before even after the fixes and Tasha's. However building a class around a level 1 spell that requires your concentration and requires your bonus action and doing nothing to mitigate those two factors is bad design. It just feels bad to have multiple features as you increase in level require you to use a spell that was only good for the first few levels.
I think the Dungeon Dudes said it best, there's still no reason to take ranger past fifth level.
Agree. Yes, it's better than in 2014. No, that does not cut it given what the other classes got.
Compared to the love other classes received, Ranger feels like an afterthought 😕
The level 5 issue was present in the UAs too and multiple people pointed it out, so no way WotC didn't know about it. Switching to Rogue, Druid or Cleric from level 6 onwards just seems to yield far better results then staying pure Ranger.
Yep, this exactly. For certain builds just 3-4 would suffice.
If say at lvl 6 you could mark HM as a part of your attack action & lvl 7 HM becomes concentration free you’d be incentivized to stay with the class.
The one buff is that now that multiclassing increases spell slots by half levels, level 5 is now a better time to multiclass into a full spell caster than before
I feel like there’s a WotC class designer watching this video and pumping their fist going “Yes! This guy gets what I was doing!”
(Assuming they haven’t been laid off during all the cuts. *sigh*)
Given the overwhelming negative reaction to the Ranger, I would be shocked if that designer would keep their job, because, why would they if everyone hates their Ranger?
@@nm2358 I would hope wotc isn't gonna fire someone based on just preliminary reactions.
If they're gone, it's because their name got picked out of the hat when the shareholders demanded Hasbro start getting rid of people to artificially inflate the stock price by cutting overhead.
Dan Dillon used to work for wotc and has some great podcasts on ranger. He seemed to be the only wotc employee who loved rangers. But it seemed he was gone before 2024 was designed.
@@kellbyb They'll probably just have their Pinkerton contacts beat some sense into them
The reason it's not about being bad or good. It's that the base class is inherently married to that spell mechanic. There are more than one feature that focus on it that could be any other thing.
The worst part it's that influence subclasses here and in the future. Hunter it's the example.
It's also worth remembering that you can ritually cast spells. There are few that are decent to have if you want more survival stuff.
I think the 13th level feature should have removed the requirement of using a bonus action to transfer once you killed your foe. That would have felt really nice.
Getting weapon mastery is good, the focus on hunter's mark is awful. Being pigeon holed into having to use one specific spell to achieve maximum effectiveness is a huge design mistake that you would think these designers could easily avoid.
and they did avoid when redesigning features like wildshape. how they turned around and did this to the ranger after winning with wildshape's flexible usages i will never know.
@@deffdefying4803 Especially when WotC's designers were proud of the fact that they moved away from this model with the warlock and Agonizing Blast, which was told to them in the surveys by people that they didn't like that, but doubled down on rangers for some reason.
New ranger doesn't strike me as very "druidic warrior" or "survivalist". The old features were bad mechanically but were top of the class for flavour imo - you actually used your surroundings to camouflage yourself by packing mud and leaves and whatever onto your armour, or had personal experience traversing a specific terrain, or had a preternatural sense for specific creatures (especially within that specific terrain).
Now it's just "you turn invisible" or "you cast hunter's mark slightly better" or "you cast hunter's mark slightly better" or "you cast hunter's mark slightly better" or "you cast hunter's mark slightly better". It's basically fighter with "Concentration D6" and half a spell list - of which you can only use half, if you are using Concentration D6, so really, a quarter of a spell list.
I love your comment, and I fully agree. Classes get more powerful with each D&D iteration, but less flavourful. I would have kept the old class features to make a ranger feel like a ranger. I do not want to look like an old grognard, there are many things that are improved from the old editions (THAC0, spell balance, martial caster divide etc etc) but the "taste and soul" of the game are kind of lost, and this is even more evident with the 2024 ranger. Such a shame.
All the mechanical optimization arguments in the world don't change the fact that ranger lost all its flavor, theme, and the basic purpose the class was created to fulfill in the first place.
Any class can deal damage. Ranger is supposed to be the class that makes the rest of the party excell at wilderness exploration, tracking, and travel on the world map. The 2014 ranger failed these because the 2014 version of Ranger's favored terrain feature was just a list of ribbon abilities that said, "You don't have to worry about travel in your terrain type." On top of the fact that the base PHB said, "Don't worry about travel or wilderness exploration. Just skip it."
Tasha's ranger failed because it's an example of the old Henry Ford quote.
"If I asked my customers what they needed, they would have told me a faster horse."
WotC asked the internet what ranger needed, and a bunch of chuds said, "Moar Hunter's Mark."
The 2024 reprints fail to fix ranger because the game still does not have an exploration pillar or decent rules for overland travel.
And Hunter's Mark is still a trap. It shouldn't be in the game.
I fixed Ranger for my players. The first thing I did was remove Hunter's Mark from the game. The second thing I did was buy the WebDM Weird Wastelands book for all my wilderness travel needs. The third thing I did was replace the favored terrain and enemy type features in the phb with a favored Mana feature.
At levels 1, 3, 6, 14, and 20 Rangers pick one of the colors of mana from Magic the Gathering.
All creature types, terrain types, classes, backgrounds, and factions are tied to one or more colors of mana. Your favored mana picks give you a list of bonuses that add damage on weapon attacks, advantage on dex, int, and wis checks, and boost travel speeds and social/treasure rolls while traveling and dealing with anything tied to any of your favored mana colors.
The solution to the limited choices of creature and terrain type was never to throw those choices away. It was always going to be replacing those limited specific choices with broad category choices that cover everything in the game with 6 or so big categories. WotC has those broad categories that cover terrains, creature types, class, background, and factions, but they're never going to use the themes and world building from the card game to fix mechanical problems with the role playing game because a bunch of chuds online riot whenever anyone mixes chocolate and peanut butter.
My gripe with the 2024 ranger is that i feel like it lost a sense of identity. It feels more like a hitman or bounty hunter than it does an explorer, and really the 2014 ranger only had issues that could be solved with a session zero or a conversation with the dm if you're joining the campaign part of the way through
I don't dislike Ranger because it's not strong enough. I dislike Ranger because I dislike Hunter's Mark, and now it's Hunter's Mark: The Class. If you try to ignore HM, you're giving up 4 class features, as well as potentially subclass features. Rangers should not have so many features tied to a singular boring spell.
14:00 One change to Nature's Veil that you missed: in Tasha's it was a level 10 feature, now it's level 14.
Despite the improvement to it, that's one of the changes I'm disappointed by. I used it lots in a previous campaign that ended at level 13, so with this Ranger I never would have got it at all.
AND it replaces Vanish at 14th level, which used to let you Hide as a Bonus Action and avoid being tracked by nonmagical means.
Why the new Hunter's Mark for the 2024 Ranger is bad:
Imagine if Paladin's Smite used up FOUR of the base class's feature slots (3 of them at high tier play levels) AND required you to maintain concentration. Imagine if the Paladin lost Radiant Strikes, Restoring Touch, and their Subclass Capstones in order to make way for features that would "improve" Smite... Now, you don't HAVE to use Smites as a Paladin. You have other spells and features you could use. But you'd be rendering four of the base class's features useless if you do.
I cant say i dont like your relentless positivity, chris. Its a breath of fresh air in what can be a sea of grumpiness, but think here youre reaching to try and be positive about this class.
I feel theres a very valid complaint about action economy overlap and tying a classes identity to a single spell.
Telling ranger players "oh you just need to take this very specific fighting style and use this very specific weapon mastery and your bonus action is freed up" doesnt feel like a good mechanical choice. Its an obligation imposed on players to overcome a bad mechanic.
It limits the number of ranger builds not in a thematic way, but in a way that players feel like otherwise they'll be underplaying their class.
BUT. Leaning into that playstyle of hunters mark locks them out of other spell uses that also ise concentration. you yourself have spoken about how 2014 4-elements monks had a terrible choice of either burning their class resource to cast unsatisfying spells or playing a subclassless monk. Well here i feel rangers have a choice of either
- using hunters mark at the expense of their other spells (spells which you yourself extolled as being a great class feature)
Or
- using hunters mark sparingly so as to benefit from all that the classes spellcasting has to offer but feeling like theyre missing out in the core features that hunters mark now provides.
We hated it when the trickery cleric had to burn their concentration on their illusory duplicate, why is it any different for rangers?
Once again, the ranger has no class identity, and this time, it seems like this is the case because WotC couldn't decide if they should be a spellcaster or not.
Hunters Mark has become a quasi class feature, the sorta thing you would do if you were completely removing spellcasting but wanted to keep that mechanic as a spell-like ability. In that context, with nothing else to take up your concentration, it can work. But expecting the ranger to also be a half caster is splitting the characters' mechanical play and identity too much.
We harp on and on about how 2014 warlock pigeonholed them into only using EB and how no matter what invocations you added to make it do more things, it didnt overcome the issue that warlocks just felt like they had one play to make.
Well its 2024 and rangers have the exact same problem now. Hunters mark is intrinsically tied to their class. Yes it gets benefits which do things beyond just the vanilla text of the spell, but it feels like it's all rangers should be doing if they want to get the most out of their class.
And given that using it locks you out of a large number of spells, you basically have an intolerable conflict between a classes features.
Ranger. Bad
The problem I have with Hunter's Mark is that it says "I'm not an awesome hunter because I studied monsters a lot, it's just because I know this spell... skill has nothing to do with it."
And that sucks.
imo being able to cast the spell is a representation of the ranger's skill.
learning spells requires skill, talent, and understanding.
It also is completely devoid of flavor.
Sure, being asked "Orcs or Undead" for your favored enemy sucked, but this? Getting a spell that grants you extra damage to every foe. There's nothing favored about that. Nothing inherent to the ranger in fact - just as you say, you're not more special than anyone else picking up that spell.
@@user-wm3hu7lo1g it also grants you bonuses to tracking and finding the creature, how is that not ranger flavoured?
@@spongemanhereBecause anyone who can cast the spell can do it. It's also negated by spells like Pass Without Trace, Nondetection etc.
@@angelagranger760 rangers are the only ones who can cast the spell, other than vengeance paladins, where it is a good thematic fit, and people who take fey touched, where I will admit is a bit of a miss, but if you're taking fey touched for hunter's mark that's kinda whack.
For me, it's less that Rangers are bad or weak, and more that if you don't use Hunter's Mark you effectively lose features as a Ranger. As you level up, there are few incentives to continue investing in levels of Ranger beyond higher level spells and buffs to Hunter's Mark. So if you don't use Hunter's Mark, there's little incentive beyond the higher level spells, which you can gain faster and with additional features by switching out to Cleric or Druid ASAP.
I'm seeing it as a major problem for specifically the half-casters in this version. There was effort put into giving more powerful and interesting features for the pure martials at later levels, so even if they aren't strictly as powerful as the full casters, there are reasons why someone would want to take a martial to high levels. For the half-casters, their biggest high level features are their spells, but their spells scale more slowly than the full casters, so the pressure is to dip your toes into the half-caster class to pick up their early level martial features, then jump ship to a full caster to also gain access to the more powerful full caster spells. With Ranger 5/Druid 15 or Ranger 5/Cleric 15, for instance, you get the most important Ranger martial features, while not even giving up access to 8th level spells and 9th level spell slots. At lower tiers, where most campaigns are starting to wrap up, Ranger 5/Druid 5, Ranger 5/Cleric 5, and Ranger 10 all have access to 3rd level spells, but the multiclass builds get access to 4th level spell slots and have 2 more spell slots overall.
The wording for beast master is weird. It says "You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Beast’s Strike action"
This wording kind of leads me to believe you can give up both your bonus action and one attack action.
So attack once with the range and twice with the beast
Then when you get to level 11 each of those beast attacks becomes 2 attacks
Probably not intentional and just bad wording but I think it does a good job of boosting the beast companions damage
Any class that can inherently take advantage of heavy weapons and has access to spells can't be the worst class in the game, period. There's a reason arcane trickster is the best rogue subclass.
How do you figure?
So that would make sorcerers and wizards as the worst classes.
@@Wanderingsage7Basically the premise is that Heavy Weapons enable the Great Weapon Master feat, and half casting is a very powerful feature on a class that already gets Weapon Masteries, notably with the various CC features on the Ranger spell list.
The fact that Ranger can also cast Hunter's Mark without expending a slot means they can potentially use HM as a Bonus Action to get niche value like which you can get from the Hunter subclass, then use their Action to cast a leveled spell (thereby sidestepping the single spell per level restriction).
Ha, I strongly disagree on Arcane Trickster being the strongest. How can it be the best if the Soul knife can kill creatures without leaving marks? Spells leave evidence.
Besides the best is subjective. I personally like Thief because I get superior mobility with a climb speed and enhanced leap. I like that it can remain hidden with a superior sneak. I love that a character can get so good at using random magic items that eventually a thief can attune to 4 magic items.
Am I right? Idk, not for me to say. All I can say is I think Thief is the best form of Rogue subclasses.
@@angelagranger760 no because they can use spells
I think with your interpretation of the how the Beastmaster interacts with the nick property, you can make a SAD Ranger focused on wisdom. Grab Shillelagh, a club or quarterstaff, and another nick weapon. Attack with your club or quarterstaff using wisdom through shillelagh, then replace the nick attack with a beast attack that uses wisdom. This also frees up your bonus action to move around HM, or possibly another bonus action attack if you grab PAM.
Good point, but it only works with the Club, since Quarterstaff isn't light. That said, the 7th-level feature specifically says that the companion only gets to use its Bonus Action when you spend yours: _"When you take a Bonus Action to command your Primal Companion beast to take an action, you can also command it to take the Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action using its Bonus Action."_
Unless they changed Shillelagh, casting that will also demand your bonus action at the start of every combat
I don't think 2024 Ranger is weak, but I do think the emphasis on Hunter's Mark is bad. I've heard people say "just don't cast HM if you don't like it," but that means loosing out on four base class features, along with HM conflicting with Beastmaster while also being directly tied to one of its features, and two features of the Hunter.
It isn't necessarily bad to cast HM without spell slots, but it feels bad to be pushed to use it by so many features which don't even make it as strong as what it competes with (concentration spells and bonus action abilities/spells) by the time you get the upgrades.
Honestly, I'd probably be fine with HM being the ranger's central focus if the level 13 feature was either removing concentration or, since that would probably have been too strong, allowing you to cast it on hitting an enemy without using a bonus action on your turn (without even removing the bonus action to move it). That would admittedly conflict with level 17's advantage to attacks, unless it was applicable on atack rather than on hit, but still, it'd overall lessen the conflicts with other, better features.
It's like how Spiritual Weapon was suboptimal, but people used it since it lacked concentration. If HM didn't conflict so heavily with other things you want to do, it'd be great to have and use.
Spiritual Weapon was suboptimal? Wasnt it standard dps for clerics? what do you use the second level slots for if not spiritual weapon?
@@finalfantasy50 Clerics used it a lot, but it's suboptimal mainly because other options will generally be better at killing quickly, or helping your team kill quickly.
For example, you can cast spiritual weapon to deal, assuming you hit, an average of 7 damage to a single target.
Or, you can cast hold person and, if they fail their save, completely disable their ability to do anything while giving the entire team advantage to hit and guaranteed critical damage if they hit with the advantage you've given them.
Or you can cast bless on your allies and make them all significantly more likely to land attacks and succeed on saves.
If the arena is good for it, you can cast silence in a location that effectively disables enemy spellcasters unless they want to run right up to your allies.
If you really need to be doing damage, right this moment, and not just assist your allies in doing damage, Guiding Bolt is a decent spell still around when you get spiritual weapon. It's damage now, not damage later, and still just a first level slot.
I'm not an optimizer, so I don't really know all of the reasons why it's suboptimal, but there's many good options for you to cast on the first round of combat that can make things go way more smoothly way faster, because of the restriction on casting leveled spells with bonus actions and actions.
Of course, there are still situations where you may want to use spiritual weapon. But generally there are much better things to do on your first turn of combat, and spiritual weapon needs to be up for several rounds of combat to be worth a second level spell slot (assuming you're even able to get it to an enemy each turn, since a 20-foot movement speed is relatively slow compared to some spells you can move, alongside most creatures' speeds).
@@finalfantasy50 spiritual weapon has 20 feet of movement per round which most creatures you'd want to use it on will outrun in a cinch
It seems to me that the biggest problem is the class identity. What is a Ranger?
An expert in navigation and orientation? Scouting and infiltration? A nature expert? Tracking creatures? A mix of all these?
Nothing in the class (perhaps with the exception of tracking creatures with Hunter's Mark) makes the Ranger truly unique.
Many classes can perform these roles better than the Ranger.
Nothing in its abilities or spell list truly enhances these roles.
A Druid can do all of this better than a Ranger.
Heck, even a Wizard, with the right build, can.
I just wish the ranger wasnt boring. It sucks how we have so many media representations of ranger and yet WoTC struggle so much
The problem with ranger class here is that Hunter's Mark badly interacts with your Spellcasting, preventing you to cast other concentration spells, and with your class features, often requiring bonus actions.
Moreover, some features are just a joke. Deft explorer doesn't make you an explorer, Foe Slayer doesn't make you slay anything with such a low increase, and relentless hunter is completely useless, and a missed opportunity.
If they just made a level 5 feature for ranger to make it move HM with attacks, made level 2 Deft explorer a little cooler, removed concentration on HM at level 9 or 13, and thought out something actually cool for level 20, we would've had a totally different opinion on this class.
I think the problem is not that Ranger is weak. I think the problem is that a few features are just bad design. A lot of the Ranger seems pretty good and fun. The thing is that those few features make the ranger more powerful, but at the same time more bland. They also pose an anti synergy with other ranger features, which always feels bad.
Hunters mark is one of the most boring and bland spells in the entire game imo. It doesn't do anything really that interesting, nor is it really that flavourful. Basically you just do a little more damage and not even in an evocative way, but just: When you hit something your enemy hurts a little more I guess. So having that spell be included in so many features feels bad. It incentivises you to be more boring with your character and choose power over fun.
The beastmaster you mentioned is also pretty bad design in a way. You mentioned how good two weapon fighting is with it, but that's basically the one thing it's great with early on. So you have the choice as a player to have two weapon fighting or being a worse character. Very exciting...
I think players again are good at spotting bad game design, but many can't quite put their hands on why it's bad. I certainly don't think it's power, but rather how it interacts with other ranger features and how it takes away flavour and interesting things to do, by overshadowing them.
Friendly reminder that whatever blocks hunter's mark also blocks everything that builds on it. Examples include: monsters with spell immunity, nondetection spell, mind blank spell, amulet of proof against detection or location (uncommon item), counterspell, counterspell-like monster abilities, rod of absorbtion and similar effects. Basically any major villain or boss monster worth its intelligence score will deny your mark or waste your actions trying to apply it.
The problem with Ranger is it went from 2/5 to a 3/5 at time when other things were fixed and it isn't the first time they have had a run at this. To make matters worse some of the few thing people liked most have been reeled in. There's very little new here that was not in Tasha's. The newness is largely pumped into Hunter Mark and that makes this class clunky - that spell is the biggest problem with the class and if Warlocks had half their power forced into Hex people would have the same opinion - Warlocks aren't even that forced into Eldritch Blast.
The attack granted by the light property is a CONDITIONAL attack with 2 conditions. Attack with a light weapon, AND attack with a different light weapon. You couldn’t swap it out for something else such as a beast attack, as you would fail to satisfy the 2nd condition and would lose the attack. By RAW you could only swap it out for an option that specifically lets you replace the conditional attack granted by the light property.
It’s not a normal attack that you can use however you see fit. It can ONLY be used for that conditional attack, or you don’t get it at all. A TWF beast master can only sacrifice an attack and use nick after attaining extra attack.
57:35 The rules clearly say the beast only gets its bonus action if you use your bonus action to command it.
Please don't imply these rules are unclear. If your DM lets your beast Dodge (Dash etc) when you sacrifice an attack to command it, that is definitely a house rule. Please don't grade the subclass based on houserules.
You are simply wrong
@@thomasquesada7248 how is it wrong when the level 7 feature is literally "When you take a *Bonus Action* to command your Primal Companion beast to take an action, you can also command it to take the Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help action using its Bonus Action."?
Engine might work now but the car is still ugly. The big downer for me is that the prepared spell change for the ranger was great and could really flavor the spells as being like tools in batmans utility belt, changed out for the occasion when the ranger gets 'prep time' going in. Then they go and remade the same mistake with stunning strike in monk, pouring so much class power into a single feature that it ruins the class. Hunters Mark should be a singular tool in the Rangers bag, not a resource specifically to turn the martial mode on.
Hunters Mark: Bonus Action, Lasts 1 Minute: You mark a creature and observe its movements and attacks. When you deal damage with an attack, you may consume the mark and deal +1d6 force damage to the target. At the start of a new round of combat if the mark hasn't been consumed this damage increases by an additional +1d6 force damage this affect can occur a number of times equal to your proficiency modifier.
There, now it's a smite you have to bake, making it perfect for securing a kill or investing in future damage with a slight drawback that it can be wasted. I just want something like that, and not to have class features shovel the option down my throat.
Beast Master continued to be the "feels bad" ranger archetype, I see. Absolutely riddled with anti-synergies in ways the other archetypes don't subject you to. I don't care if you assure me it's mathematically on par with the others on damage (as long as you are two weapon fighting). I should not be seeing my base class fight against my archetype when I'm playing my character.
The subclass that intrigues me the most is the Hunter because all of their abilities should be within the main class and be core mechanics exclusive to rangers. The replacement subclass should be an elemental archer, who instead of using spells uses their spell slots to give effects to their projectiles. Something similar to the Paladin Smites, like searing arrow, thunderous arrow, divine arrow, wrathful, blinding, and banishing arrows for different effects and not having to cast spells aside from the physical attacks, because the Ranger is not a Druid.